Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

NEW WRIT.

For the Borough of Nottingham (Central Division), in the room of Sir Terence James O'Connor, K.C., deceased.—[Sir James Edmondson.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

SOUTH-EASTERN GAS CORPORATION, LIMITED (ASSOCIATED COMPANIES) BILL [Lords].

As amended, considered.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Dennis Herbert): The Amendments in this case are consequential on the insertion of a new Clause, and the necessity for them had been overlooked.

Amendments agreed to.

Bill to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITARY SERVICE.

RESERVED OCCUPATIONS.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will now make a regulation whereby men who may be in reserved occupations, but have previous military experience, or none, can be enabled to join His Majesty's Forces without the loss of pension rights or prospects of re-employment in their present posts, and making it incumbent on their employers to fill their positions during hostilities?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): The Schedule of Reserved Occupations is constantly open to revision according to changing circumstances, but if a man is covered by the current provisions of the Schedule, it would be contrary to its whole object to require or allow him to join the Forces.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind, subject to the requirements and safety of the State, that a man's conscience should be allowed free play in this matter; and will he urge upon the employers, who are in some cases sheltering behind the Reserved Occupations list, to free as many men as possible?

Mr. Bevin: I cannot allow conscience to operate in that way as far as the Schedule of Reserved Occupations is concerned. In that case you would probably get so many men away from skilled work that you would upset the whole balance of production. Therefore, I am engaged in the constant revision of the Schedule according to the changed circumstances that arise in each trade.

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.

Major Leighton: asked the Minister of Labour how many conscientious objectors from the Civil Service have been exempted from military service on condition they find work of national importance; how many have found such employment; and how many still remain in the Civil Service?

Mr. Bevin: Thirty civil servants have been ordered by the local tribunals to be registered as conscientious objectors conditionally upon their taking up work outside the Civil Service, and of these 13 have found such employment. Of the remaining 17, four were ordered to remain in their present employment by the Appellate Tribunal, which varied the local tribunal's orders in their cases; in five cases appeals by the men concerned are awaiting the Appellate Tribunal's consideration; one was registered unconditionally as a conscientious objector by the Appellate Tribunal and has now left the Civil Service; one was registered for ambulance work and is waiting for a vacancy in a training camp; six have not yet been able to find the work specified, and are keeping in touch with the Exchange.

Sir Irving Albery: In reference to the man who is awaiting admission to a training camp, is not immediate employment available with the L.C.C.?

Mr. Bevin: I cannot answer for the L.C.C.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has now ascertained the number of con-


scientious objectors placed by tribunals on the register on condition that they undertake work of national importance; how many have found, and are now engaged, in such work; and what has happened to the others?

Mr. Bevin: Up to 27th June the tribunals had registered 4,514 men as conscientious objectors on condition that they remained in their present occupations and 2,282 on condition that they undertook work in new occupations. Of the latter 980 had found or been placed in such work. The remainder are required to do their utmost to comply with the condition as soon as possible, and to report on their efforts at monthly intervals. Most of the work prescribed in the 2,282 cases is agricultural or other work on the land, and this is also true of the 980 who had found the prescribed work. I have been in constant touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture with a view to arranging for the absorption of those men who have not yet secured agricultural work.

Sir A. Knox: Would it not be possible for these men to be formed into gangs to take over derelict land and really work it in the national interest?

Mr. Bevin: That question should be put to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. I have arranged to hand the men over as soon as he is ready.

Mr. Levy: Would it not be wise for these men to be put into non-combatant work so that they shall not get any privileges or advantages over the men who really go to fight?

Mr. Bevin: I must have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL WAR EFFORT.

UNEMPLOYED.

Mr. Magnay: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that many Gateshead miners are not allowed by his Department to undertake other work, although they are only receiving unemployment pay, when they could earn as much as £6 per week on armament work; and will he see that it is made possible, by taking away his restrictions, for these men to work more than two or three days a fortnight?

Mr. Bevin: To meet the changed circumstances resulting from recent events,

I have, after consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines, issued instructions that unemployed coal miners for whom employment in their own industry is not immediately available, should be submitted for other employment. I am also making arrangements to allow men who are on short time to work in other industries as a temporary measure until more regular work in the mines is available for them.

Mr. Robert Gibson: Will my right hon. Friend make a similar arrangement with regard to the relief dockers in Greenock, who are subject to a similar prohibition to take other work?

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the Minister of Labour approximately how many of the registered unemployed must now be regarded as incapable of useful employment; whether they will be excluded from future returns of unemployment; and what further measures are being taken to use the effective unemployed for the national war effort?

Mr. Bevin: A general review of the Register is now being undertaken to assess the suitability for employment of all persons who have been unemployed for one month or more. Meanwhile the information asked for in the first part of the Question is not available. As regards the second part of the Question, I have this matter under consideration. As regards the third part, the review that has already taken place of the unemployed in certain industries has proved most helpful in getting men back into employment, and I am hopeful that the general review will have similar results. I have already made provision for payment of travelling and subsistence expenses of men who take important work away from home, and am considerably expanding the facilities for men to take training.

Sir P. Hurd: Can we now anticipate in the near future that the unemployment reports will really show the exact position of affairs and not give a false impression?

ARMAMENT FACTORIES (WOMEN'S WAGES).

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that women of 26 and 16 years of age with four years' and 10 months' experience of aircraft work, respectively, are earning only 28s. 2d. and 18s. 8d. each for a 47-hours week at a certain factory; and whether


he can take action to see that reasonable conditions obtain for such good war work?

Mr. Bevin: If my hon. Friend will let me have particulars of the cases to which he refers, I shall be glad to have inquiries made.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES' EMPLOYÉS.

Sir I. Albery: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that many local authorities have highly-trained staffs and workmen employed on non-essential work and sometimes not fully occupied; and whether he can make arrangements by which the services of a large amount of skilled labour and plant can be more fully utilised for the national effort in the present emergency?

Mr. Bevin: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has circularised all local authorities requesting them to review their staffs with a view to releasing such of them as are qualified by their previous experience for employment in the armament and shipbuilding industries, and my local officers have been instructed to co-operate with the local authorities in facilitating the transfer of such men.

Sir I. Albery: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking into account the fact that local authorities are naturally unwilling to deplete their staffs beyond a certain framework, and would it not be better that some work should be handed over?

Mr. Bevin: That is a question for the Supply Departments.

CONTRACTS (TRADE UNION LABOUR).

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that no trade union labour is employed by Victoria Mills, Limited, Cleckheaton and Doncaster; that employés receive wages 10 per cent. less than in similar textile mills where conditions are negotiated by trade unions; and, as this firm are on Government contracts, will he insist on trade union freedom or consider the cancelling of Government work?

Mr. Bevin: I am making inquiries and will communicate with my hon. Friend. He will no doubt be aware that Government contractors are bound by the Fair Wage Clause in their contracts and that the question of enforcing observance of the clause is a matter for the contracting Department concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT ALLOWANCE (DECEASED SOLDIER'S FATHER).

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that James Hunter, Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, died of wounds on 12th May, 1940, and his account was then in credit to the extent of £4 14s. 8d., which sum was paid to his father Robert Hunter, 44, Robertson Avenue, Greenock, on 13th June, 1940, at the post office; that, on 14th June, the unemployment allowance of £2 10s. previously paid to Robert Hunter was reduced in respect of the sum paid him from the account of his son; and whether he will take steps to secure that this deduction be repaid, and that the appropriate measures be taken to secure that no such deductions be made in future?

Mr. Bevin: I am making inquiries into this matter and will communicate with my hon. and learned Friend as soon as possible.

Mr. Gibson: Will my right hon. Friend see that a regulation is made whereby the savings of the deceased soldier are counted as savings of the family for purposes of the Unemployment Assistance Board?

Mr. Bevin: I must have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE.

AIR-RAID SHELTERS.

Mr. Ammon: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that in some of the reception areas in the West Country, to which school children have been recently evacuated, no air-raid shelter is provided, and that in some instances the children have been taken from the school and placed against hedges and bushes; and what steps it is proposed to take to remedy so undesirable a condition of affairs?

The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Ramsbotham): The nature and extent of the protection, if any, at a particular school are matters for the discretion of the local education authority in consultation with the local A.R.P. authority. In rural areas, except where aerodromes or other similar objectives are in close proximity to the school, there is, generally speaking, no occasion for formal protec-


tion other than simple precautions of the type recommended for private households in the pamphlet issued by the Ministry of Home Security entitled "Your Home as an Air-Raid Shelter." Local education authorities have recently been informed in the Board's Administrative Memorandum No. 233, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy, that the practice of dispersing children to such cover as tray be available in open country is not now recommended.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: In view of the changed conditions, are there now different standards in evacuation and reception areas?

Mr. Ramsbotham: I do not quite know what the hon. Gentleman means by "different standards." In rural areas, of course, broadly speaking, it is for local education authorities to decide, in consultation with the local A.R.P. authorities, the degree and form of protection necessary.

Mr. Lindsay: The whole point is that the conditions have so changed now that you cannot make quite the same distinction between areas as you could six months ago.

Mr. Ramsbotham: In that case it is a matter for discussion between the school authorities and the A.R.P. authorities to see whether further protection is required.

Mr. James Griffiths: Is the Board of Education making a current review of some of the places to which children have been evacuated, in view of recent conditions?

Mr. Ramsbotham: This matter is always under review by local education and A.R.P. authorities, and it is the responsibility of these two authorities to decide what protection is necessary for the schools in question.

Mr. Griffiths: Is it the local authority or the central authority which decides the places which have to be evacuated, and is the central authority the responsible authority for reviewing places in my area, where children have had unhappy experiences during the last few days?

Mr. Ramsbotham: The central authority in that case is the Ministry of Health.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Would it not be desirable for the Board to send a circular

to all authorities particularly in rural areas, calling their attention to the changed conditions and asking them to see whether shelter provision ought not now to be provided?

Mr. Ramsbotham: I am sure local education authorities are aware of their responsibilities in this matter, but the question of re-classifying areas is one for the Ministry of Health and not my Department.

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent the construction of air-raid shelters has been impeded by difficulties in the transport of bricks; and what steps he proposes to take to remove these difficulties?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir John Anderson): The question of obtaining increased supplies of bricks for this and other purposes is under review by the Government; but I have no reason to believe that transport difficulties have played any significant part in present shortages.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been drawn to the reports of many local authorities which are unable to obtain bricks because they are not allowed to carry them by lorry for a distance of more than 30 miles?

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir, I know these complaints were made some time ago. I believe the present position is a shortage of supply and not a lack of transport.

Mr. Thurtle: If information is brought to the right hon. Gentleman's notice showing that transport is still a difficulty, will he take some action?

Sir J. Anderson: I certainly will, because I am most anxious that bricks should be available for civilian defence, especially in the most vulnerable areas.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: Is the Minister aware that local brick works in the country are "going broke" because they cannot get any business, and that in most cases they are told they must wait until these great monopoly concerns produce the bricks?

Mr. F. Anderson: Is the Minister aware that on the main lines near London there are millions of bricks standing on the sidings?

Sir J. Anderson: Those bricks may be required for purposes near at hand, but the whole matter is receiving attention.

IDENTITY CARDS.

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Minister of Health whether he is prepared to make a clear distinction in the national registration identity cards issued to children, women and men, further to reduce the possibility of these being fraudulently used for enemy purposes?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): The substance of the hon. Member's suggestion is already generally secured by the requirement that the holder's age should be entered on the identity card in the case of children under 16, and by the existing indications of sex afforded by the names upon the cards. To carry the suggestion any further would entail the re-issue or special examination and marking, of some 45,000,000 cards.

Mr. Ralph Etherton: asked the Minister of Health when it is intended to make effective the promised and any other extension of the usefulness of national registration identity cards; and whether he will make a further statement?

Sir A. Knox: asked the Minister of Health whether he has yet come to a decision regarding the steps to be taken to render the system of identity cards more effective?

Sir Stanley Reed: asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider entering on the blank space at the back of each national registration identity card particulars of personal appearance corresponding to those on passports, with or without finger prints, for closer identification in special cases?

Sir Frank Sanderson: asked the Minister of Health whether he can now make a further statement on extensions of the identity card system?

Mr. MacDonald: As the answer is rather long, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir Herbert Williams: Was the English gentleman, who said he was a German parachutist the other day, asked to produce his identity card?

Following is the answer:
The provision for the whole population of identity cards bearing reliably authenticated photographs is impracticable. A system of photograph-bearing identity cards, to be effective, must rest upon reliable authentication of the identity of the person who holds the card and is the subject of the photograph. Unless this condition is satisfied, the improper use of identity cards by agents of the Fifth Column would be facilitated. If, for instance, as has been suggested, provision were made for the fixing of a photograph by the holder of an identity card and subsequent confirmation by the police, the holder of a lost or stolen identity card would be enabled to procure for that card a spurious authenticity. It is not practicable, within the space of a few months, to provide the whole population with photograph-bearing identity cards authenticated by a procedure which is sufficiently strict to avoid this danger.
It is considered that the needs of the situation can be met by a more limited provision. An identity card is not in itself either a form of permission giving a right of entry or passage, or a certificate of the good character or bona fides of the holder, but simply a document of identity. In connection with forms of permission conferring rights of entry or passage to certain places, the principal purpose of an identity card is to enable the police or military or other authorities concerned to establish with ease and certainty that the holder of a permit is the person to whom that permit was given. Where such a permission is not in question, the ordinary national registration identity card, supported by other measures which are available and in use by the police and the military authorities, is sufficient to satisfy the other purposes which the national registration identity card system is designed to meet. The extent to which photograph-bearing identity cards are necessary hence depends largely on the extent to which they are required in connection with documents conferring rights of entry or passage.
A "green identity card" bearing a strictly authenticated photograph has been available since the beginning of the year. This card must be obtained by applicants who wish to get permits to enter prohibited places within the meaning of the Official Secrets Act, or protected places or areas within the meaning of the Defence Regulations; and it may be obtained, if proper authentication of his identity is forthcoming, by any applicant who wishes to be furnished with an easy means of identification in support of any permit which he holds. Identity cards of comparable types are also issued to merchant seamen and to the police.
A further type of identity card has now also been introduced for use by persons engaged in certain occupations, for example, the employés of water undertakings. This card provides for the endorsement of a photograph of the holder and of the card by a representative of the employing authority. The issue of these cards, in conjunction with certificates of employment, will facilitate the movement of such workers and other autho-


rised persons, and will assist in enabling the movement of others to be controlled, in conditions in which police or military restrictions on movement of the general population are in force. Water, electricity, gas, sewage and certain transport undertakings have been instructed by the appropriate Government Departments to issue certificates of employment to those of their employés who, it is considered, require them, and such employés have been directed to obtain this form of identity card. It it is available for those classes of person, and those classes only, which, in the opinion of the Department concerned, require quicker and fuller means of identification than is provided by the ordinary national registration identity card, and in respect of whom instructions are given by that Department. It is a matter for the Department concerned with any particular class of persons whether the issue of the card should be extended to that class. A number of such extensions are under consideration by the Departments concerned, including the case of trade union officials, which is a matter for the Ministry of Labour.
Prior to the introduction of the last-mentioned form of identity card, instructions were given that certain personal particulars should be entered and certified on the national registration identity cards of certain classes of persons enrolled in the Civil Defence Services, and that where possible a photograph should also be affixed. This form of additional certification is not appropriate to persons other than those in respect of whom instructions have been issued, and entries on identity cards of this or any other kind other than those made in pursuance of a direction by a Government Department are unauthorised.
In addition to the foregoing arrangements, action is now being taken by the police under the arrangements agreed with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to endorse the identity cards of registered aliens and certain classes of persons of recently acquired British nationality, in order that their status in these respects may be apparent upon the production of their identity cards.
Under the National Registration Regulations, the police, members of His Majesty's Forces in uniform and on duty, and local national registration officers, are authorised to demand the production of identity cards. Persons who cannot produce their cards on demand are required to produce them within two clear days at a police station nominated by the defaulter. Further, the police and military authorities have power, under Defence Regulation 18 (d), to detain any person who fails to satisfy them as to his identity. These mowers are applicable irrespective of the type of identity card appropriate to the particular individual.

INTERNEES.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Home Secretary whether there is any limitation on the number of letters which can be sent by, or received by, interned enemy aliens?

Sir J. Anderson: All civilian internees are allowed to send two letters a week. As regards the reception of letters, there is no fixed limit, though there may have been difficulties and delays in handling the large volume of letters and parcels addressed to internees.

Mr. Silverman: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is true that there are many instances in which relatives have heard nothing from them for as long as a fortnight and do not know where they are?

Sir J. Anderson: I believe there have been instances of delay, and I have been doing my best to see that they are reduced.

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Home Secretary to what extent the conditions under which persons are detained for reasons of security in prisons resemble those of ordinary untried prisoners or those of ordinary convicts; and whether some arrangement could safely be made to reduce their hours of solitary confinement or grant more frequent access to library books, and also to improve the hygienic facilities and generally bring their confinement more into accordance with internment conditions?

Sir J. Anderson: The regulations governing the detention of such persons in prisons are based—with some modifications—on the rules relating to the treatment of persons awaiting trial. I am anxious that, so far as security considerations permit, their treatment shall be as little as possible oppressive, but at the present time, owing to the large numbers detained and the limited staffs available for their custody, it is not possible to allow longer hours of association, or to arrange for other modifications of the routine which is necessary for custodial purposes. The question whether any improved arrangements can be made is engaging my attention, and I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestions.

Mr. Maxton: Could a copy of those rules be made available for the information of Members of the House, and will the right hon. Gentleman tell us where he gets statutory authority to make an entirely new set of prison regulations?

Sir J. Anderson: I think the hon. Member will find that express provision is made in Regulation 18B for the issue of rules governing the treatment of these


persons in their places of custody. I was under the impression that the rules had been made available to Members. I will look into that, and, if it has not been done, I will see that it is done.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider issuing information as to the treatment of democrats in Fascist countries?

Mr. Goldie: Is the treatment accorded to these persons that accorded to offenders in the first division?

Sir J. Anderson: No, Sir. It is based on the treatment given to persons awaiting trial, with some modifications.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Home Secretary whether it is intended to intern German refugees from Nazi oppression who have done or are doing work of national importance by exposing in newspapers or books the Nazi menace and suggesting means by which it can best be met, and those who, given an opportunity, are willing and anxious to do any work, military or otherwise, which may contribute towards the defeat of the Nazis?

Sir J. Anderson: The decision taken on military considerations that the large numbers of Germans and Austrians in this country ought not in present circumstances to be left at liberty necessarily involved the internment of many who, as far as I know, are anxious to assist this country. Arrangements have been made to exempt from internment certain categories of persons whose work is of special value to the war effort.

Mr. Strauss: Does the right hon. Gentleman include as valuable to the war effort the work of such people as are mentioned in my Question?

Sir J. Anderson: I think that must be a matter of judgment, but I have always been prepared to consider any representations with regard to the form in which particular aliens could render useful service.

Mr. Graham White: May I ask the might hon. Gentleman whether those categories would include distinguished scientists and operators whose names and records are included on the Central Register under the aliens section?

Sir J. Anderson: Any persons answering that description have been released from internment on the ground of the useful service which they are in a position to render.

Mr. White: asked the Home Secretary to what extent the chief constables have exercised the discretion allowed them in respect of the exemption from internment of Class C aliens?

Sir J. Anderson: The discretion given to chief constables is not a discretion to exempt enemy aliens from internment, but a discretion to intern individuals falling within the exempted categories if as regards a particular individual the police have special information showing that his immediate internment is necessary on security grounds.

Mr. White: Does the right hon. Gentleman expect that at any time he will have any statistical record or indication of the extent to which this has been done?

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir. The police have been asked to report specially the action taken with regard to persons covered by the exceptions referred to.

Mr. Silverman: Is the discretion of the chief constable in such cases subject to any review by the right hon. Gentleman's Department?

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir. I have said that chief constables have been instructed to report the manner in which they have exercised the discretion which is entrusted to them by the Regulation.

Mr. Sorensen: Is that retrospective?

Sir J. Anderson: My hon. Friend explained in the Debate yesterday that this particular step applicable to aliens who have been classified in Category C was initiated only a few days ago. As regards persons who were arrested under instructions given on, I think, 11th May, as my hon. Friend explained, the Department is taking the initiative in arranging for the consideration of individual cases which would have come within the exceptions had they been dealt with under the instructions of a few days ago.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of making arrangements for one Minister to be responsible for everything affecting the internment of aliens, in view of the overlapping and additional respon-


sibility now existing between the War Office and the Home Office on this subject?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given yesterday by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery).

Mr. Mander: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether, if it is not possible to appoint a new Minister in charge of the whole arrangements, the Home Secretary should be given charge of all these camps, taking over the camps for male internees from the War Office?

Mr. Attlee: The whole matter is now under close consideration.

Sir I. Albery: Did not the statements made show that the War Office is not now concerned, except as regards custody of male aliens, and would it not, therefore, be better if the entire administration of friendly aliens were in the hands of the Home Office?

FASCISTS.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the British Union of Fascists transferred their books, files, stationery and propaganda effects to two ground-floor rooms in Paddington, using two commercial vans marked with the letters "W.D.", and having the War Department arrow-head sign; and what action has been taken?

Sir J. Anderson: I have ascertained that the removal was carried out by a removal contractor, who used for the purpose a van on which the letters "W.D." had been painted last year when it was employed on a Government contract at Aldershot. This marking has now been removed, and the owner of the van has been cautioned.

Mr. Davidson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman really think that under his own instructions his Department ought to have been able to stop such a thing before it actually took place? Is this organisation being watched carefully?

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir. The organisation is being watched carefully.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Home Secretary whether he has a list of the private houses where official Fascist propaganda is printed on silent duplicating machines; whether he is aware of the police and public anxiety regarding the growing number of incidents arising from the open distribution of such propaganda; and what action he has taken?

Sir J. Anderson: Inquiries and searches are being undertaken by the police where there is any suspicion of current Fascist activities, and my information is that the steps taken for dealing with the organisation and active members of the British Union have been effective. An order has now been made under the Defence Regulations which makes it an offence to issue propaganda on behalf of this organisation, and the police have been instructed to take appropriate steps if there is any contravention of the Regulation.

Mr. Davidson: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the statement in the Question that these incidents, particularly in the Paddington area, are creating concern both to the police and to the public?

Sir J. Anderson: I have no information to the effect that that practice is being carried on.

Sir H. Williams: Does the same answer apply to Communist propaganda on noisy duplicating machines?

Sir J. Anderson: That is a separate question.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Home Secretary whether any restrictions have been placed on the movements and activities of Lady Pearson, who founded a Fascist branch in this country, and what are the extent of such restrictions?

Sir J. Anderson: By an order made against her on 8th June under Regulation 18A of the Defence Regulations, Lady Pearson is precluded from being in any area which is a protected area under the Aliens (Protected Areas) Orders and is also required to notify the police of any change of address.

Mr. Davidson: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that no modification of those restrictions will take place because of the fact that this lady is related to a Member of the Government?

Mr. Benson: Why was not this lady interned?

Sir J. Anderson: Perhaps I ought to tell the House that the decision taken in this matter was taken by me personally after consideration of the facts reported by the local police and that no extraneous consideration or argument whatsoever was taken into account.

Mr. Davidson: Did the right hon. Gentleman take into account the anxiety of public opinion with regard to the freedom of this lady while others are being interned and committed to prison?

Sir J. Anderson: I try to take all relevant considerations into account in these matters.

ENEMY AIRCRAFT LANDINGS.

Mr. Cocks: asked the Home Secretary whether he will consider issuing an order to all landowners or occupiers, especially in rural districts, compelling them immediately to render their land unfit for aeroplane landings except in such cases as the military authorities may decide to the contrary?

Mr. Emery: asked the Home Secretary whether he will issue an order to landowners and occupiers forthwith that all land over two acres in extent, shall, by the placing of obstructions, be made unfit for aeroplanes to use?

Sir J. Anderson: I would refer my hon. Friends to the answer given yesterday to a Question on the same subject by the hon. and learned Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons).

Mr. Cocks: What was the effect of the answer?

Sir J. Anderson: It was a very brief answer to the effect that the work has already been organised under the guidance of local authorities and is proceeding satisfactorily with the aid of voluntary labour.

Mr. Cocks: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some parts of the country this has been done very well, but that in other parts nothing at all has been done?

Sir J. Anderson: Instructions have been issued in all areas which have been designated by the military authorities as suitable for such landings.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Has the right hon. Gentleman made certain local authorities understand that they have the power to requisition the materials required for this work and that the Government will pay the necessary charges, because I believe that question is actually holding up the work in places where it might be done?

Sir J. Anderson: I have been issuing instructions through the Regional Commissioners, and I believe, from what I have seen, that the matter has been made clear to local authorities concerned.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Does this policy operate in regard to golf courses throughout the country?

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir, it applies generally.

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: Is it not the case that there is confusion in rural areas owing to the fact that orders were given by the Air Ministry?

Sir J. Anderson: I have no doubt that the Air Ministry are taking certain steps in regard to matters in which they are particularly concerned, but the work referred to in the Question has been the subject of instructions issued by the Ministry of Home Security.

Sir A. Knox: Should not the competent air or military officer decide whether these places are suitable or not in each case?

Sir J. Anderson: The instructions given call attention to the importance of seeking guidance from the local military or air authorities as to the lines upon which the work should be done. The function of the local authority is to organise the work, that is to say, to collect the labour and the implements necessary.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider sending out another circular as to the points of requisitioning and payment?

Sir J. Anderson: Certainly, Sir. I will have those points looked into.

AIR ATTACKS (ROADS).

Mr. Cocks: asked the Home Secretary whether he will give the reason for his decision that it is not practicable to issue an order to cut gaps in hedges bordering on high roads and temporarily cover them with hurdles in order to enable civilians attacked from the air to get out of the roads into the fields?

Sir J. Anderson: I do not regard this as a practical proposition as, apart from all other considerations, the amount of work involved would be out of all proportion to the advantages which might accrue from it.

Mr. Cocks: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware, judging from experience in France, that the fact of roads being full of refugees has prevented the efficciency of military operations? If anything can be done to stop that, it is worth considering.

Sir J. Anderson: We are determined to stop it, and we are taking the steps best calculated to secure that object.

DEFENCE AREAS.

Sir H. Williams: asked the Home Secretary whether he will consider some revision of the arrangements in respect of persons desiring to proceed to protected areas, so that they may have an assurance that they will be allowed to pay their visit before they commence their journey?

Sir J. Anderson: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given yesterday to a Question on this subject by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Lyons).

Sir H. Williams: On a point of Order. The Home Secretary has referred me to an answer given yesterday to a Private Notice Question. My Question was tabled last Monday. I take it that you, Sir, would not have permitted the Private Notice Question yesterday unless it was different from mine. In those circumstances I take It that I am entitled to a different answer from the Horne Secretary.

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid I overlooked that.

Mr. Granville: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the check on civilians entering military-controlled areas is not being enforced; and will he consult the Secretary of State for War with regard to making use of special military police for this purpose?

Sir J. Anderson: I am not sure what my hon. Friend means by military-controlled areas, but if he will supply me with details of the cases which he has in mind, I shall be happy to consider what action I can most usefully take.

HOUSES (ENEMY DAMAGE).

Mr. Touche: asked the Home Secretary whether he has recommended all householders to put on the back of their front door the number of persons sleeping in the house so that, in the event of the house being partially destroyed, rescuing parties might have this guidance as to the number of occupants?

Sir J. Anderson: No, Sir. Even if the record remained intact after destruction of the property, complete reliance could not be placed upon the accuracy of the record at the time of the incident, and rescue parties would still have to depend upon the personal knowledge of neighbours and wardens.

SCOTTISH ISLANDS.

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that there are islands on the West Coast of Scotland owned by private individuals, and that, in the case of at least one island, one individual determines who may or may not land; and what steps he has taken to ensure that activities on these islands generally are supervised in the interests of national security and, in particular, that none of the islands are used by pro-Nazi sympathisers?

Sir J. Anderson: I am informed that the police keep these islands under supervision. They have had occasion to investigate certain recent reports but have satisfied themselves that there was no ground for any action.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of these islands is owned and occupied by the father and the family of Miss Unity Mitford, relatives and former associates of Fascists, and that it is causing great perturbation in the North of Scotland that these people are entirely unsupervised and have entire control of the island?

Sir J. Anderson: Those people are not, as far as I know, resident on the island. I have information as to the persons who are there.

Mr. Neil Maclean: Is it not the case that the father of Miss Unity Mitford went to an island that he possesses off the West coast of Mull and is still resident there?

Sir J. Anderson: Miss Unity Mitford is not there.

Mr. Maclean: Her father, who was an associate of Fascists, is.

COMPULSION.

Sir Leonard Lyle: asked the Home Secretary whether he proposes, by regulation, to introduce compulsory service for Civil Defence in parts of the country without, at the same time, extending it to all; and when he proposes to take the necessary action?

Sir J. Anderson: I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the Question put to me on 4th July by the hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon).

MILITARY TRAFFIC (PRIORITY).

Mr. Granville: asked the Home Secretary whether he will take steps to see that drivers of civilian vehicles give the right of way to all military traffic, particularly in controlled areas?

Sir J. Anderson: Under the Traffic on Highways Order, 1940, made by the Minister of Transport under Defence Regulation 70, Regional Commissioners have been empowered to issue directions which will ensure that military traffic or other essential transport is given such priority within their Regions as may from time to time be necessary.

Mr. Granville: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider making an appeal on the wireless and through the Press to this effect?

Sir J. Anderson: I do not think it is a question of making an appeal. As I have explained, instructions have been given and directions will be issued and enforced if the necessity arises.

ABLE-BODIED CIVILIANS.

Miss Rathbone: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give further guidance to the nation as to the part which able-bodied civilians, not members of the Regular or Local Defence Volunteer Forces, should play if enemy invasion materialises, either by passive resistance, by refusing or hiding food, by giving no information or misleading information, or will they be permitted and encouraged to offer active resistance with any weapons they can improvise or that are made available to them?

Mr. Attlee: Yes, Sir. This matter is at present under consideration, and instructions will be issued to the public without delay.

Miss Rathbone: They will be issued, then, before the emergency arises?

FIREWORKS (SURRENDER).

Mr. R. Morgan: asked the Home Secretary what action he proposes to take with regard to small shopkeepers, who are suffering considerable losses owing to the compulsory surrender of fireworks without any compensation?

Sir J. Anderson: This matter is under consideration, and I am not in a position to make a statement to-day.

EVACUATED AREAS (RELIEF).

Sir L. Lyle: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will appoint an emergency committee to recommend what steps should be taken to alleviate the distress caused to hotels, boarding houses and other businesses in coastal resorts affected by the new Defence Area Regulations concerning visitors?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): Regulations have been issued applying a moratorium to rent, rates and certain other local debts, within any part of a Defence Area which may be declared by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Home Security to be an evacuated area. Relief is moreover afforded in certain conditions by the provisions of the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1939, and persons who are in distress as a result of the war are eligible for assistance under the scheme for the prevention and relief of distress. In these circumstances I do not think the appointment of a committee is necessary.

Sir L. Lyle: Would my right hon. Friend be prepared to receive representations?

Sir K. Wood: Certainly.

Mr. Loftus: Is my right hon. Friend aware that owing to the effect of the war on seaside hotels there are many cases where, unless the law is altered, the licence duty will increase 20 and 30-fold, and will he take any steps to alter it?

Vice Admiral Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are boroughs in London which are just as badly hit as the coast towns?

Sir K. Wood: Those are some of the difficulties.

Oral Answers to Questions — LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL SCHOOLS (MILITARY TRAINING).

Sir Walter Smiles: asked the President of the Board of Education the


position as regards cadet corps in the London County Council schools; and whether boys are now given opportunities for any military training?

Mr. Ramsbotham: There are at present no cadet corps in schools provided by the London County Council, but I understand that the Council have allowed cadet corps the use of playgrounds of provided elementary schools and other facilities. In addition, officers' training corps and cadet corps are to be found in a small number of schools not provided but aided by the Council.

Sir W. Smiles: Is it not a great misfortune for the country that the London County Council adopted such an unfortunate attitude in the past?

Mr. Ramsbotham: I think that what I have said shows a very satisfactory advance on previous policy.

Mr. Lindsay: Is it still true that there is no maintained secondary school under the London County Council where cadet corps are allowed?

Mr. Ramsbotham: I have said that at present there are no cadet corps in the schools maintained by the London County Council.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: Has the view of the London County Council about the training of men as Territorials in their parks been altered yet?

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONS (BLIND PERSONS).

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: asked the Minister of Health what is the position of a person who has never drawn a blind person's pension, but who, being over 70 years of age and drawing the 10s. old age pension, becomes blind either before making application for a supplementary pension or after having drawn a supplementary pension under the auspices of the Ministry of Health for some time?

Mr. M. MacDonald: Blind persons are expressly excluded from the scope of Part II of the Old Age and Widows' Pensions Act, 1940, and are not, therefore, eligible for a supplementary pension. The responsibility for assisting such persons rests with the local authority under the Blind Persons Acts.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Do I understand that when a person becomes blind the duty of maintaining him is transferred from the Ministry of Health to the local authority? If so, who undertakes to make that change?

Mr. MacDonald: A person who is in receipt of a supplementary pension and then becomes blind automatically comes under the Blind Persons Act, and the responsibility for his or her maintenance then falls on the local authority. We shall be very careful to see that there is no interval between the receipt of his or her payment by way of supplementary pension and the receipt of payment from the other authority.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

POLITICAL SITUATION.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can make a statement respecting recent conversations between the Viceroy, Mr. Gandhi and Mr. Jinnah, respectively; and whether he has any information respecting the circumstances of the arrest of Mr. Subhas Bose?

The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): I have no statement to make with reference to the first part of the Question. As regards the second part, the Bengal Government report that the immediate reason for the arrest of Mr. Subhas Chandra Bose on 2nd July was to forestall a breach of the peace in Calcutta on the following day when he had declared his intention to initiate forcible action to secure the demolition or removal of the Holwell Monument in Calcutta commemorating the "Black Hole" tragedy. He intended to take this course as an attempt to induce the Bengal Government to come to a decision on the matter, which was under their consideration, within 24 hours. He is now awaiting trial under the Defence of India Rules for certain subversive speeches recently delivered by him.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the Minister likely to make a statement in the near future with regard to the conversations, especially in view of the fact that he stated last time that conversations were being held then and that he might have some report to make later on?

Mr. Amery: I hope so.

ARMY COMMISSIONS (INDIANS).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for India whether there has been any substantial increase in the number of commissions granted to Indian applicants; and what justification there is for the complaint that many applications have been refused?

Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir. The output of trained Indian officers is expected to be very largely increased during the coming year. The authorities in India have to select the best men for the vacancies available, and presumably a certain number of less well qualified candidates have to be rejected.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in fact there have been certain complaints recently regarding the very small number of Indian applicants granted commissions? Is that likely to be remedied?

Mr. Amery: All the other applicants are Indian applicants, and as rapidly as the Indian Army is expanded applicants are taken, by selection.

Mr. R. Gibson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the proportion of rejects in India is greater than the proportion of rejects at home?

Oral Answers to Questions — CHANNEL ISLANDERS (GOVERNMENT ARRANGEMENTS).

Mr. Mander: asked the Home Secretary the present position with regard to the Channel Islands; what neutral foreign representatives were there or had access for the purpose of taking charge of British interests; and in what manner compensation and assistance can be obtained by those who have lost their possessions on evacuation to England?

Mr. Ammon: asked the Home Secretary (1) whether any arrangements are being made to enable the Channel Islanders, as prisoners of war, to communicate with their friends and relatives in Great Britain;
(2) why no adequate plans for the evacuation of the population of the Channel Islands were made after the islands were demilitarised; whether he is aware that within an hour of a deputation to the Home Office from the Channel Islands being informed that the question was still under consideration Guernsey

was being bombed; and who was responsible for such slackness?

Mr. Parker: asked the Home Secretary what percentage of the population of the Channel Islands was evacuated; why this evacuation was not made compulsory; and what measures are being taken to look after those evacuated to this country?

Sir Ralph Glyn: asked the Home Secretary what steps have been taken to establish a clearing house of information for persons evacuated from the Channel Islands; whether the Lieutenant-Governors and officials have been given facilities to establish temporary offices in this country in order to assist those islanders who have lost all their possessions to obtain lodging and suitable work; whether to this end any special steps have been taken by the Ministries of Labour and Health; and further, whether the Home Secretary, in conjunction with the Foreign Office, can take immediate steps to ascertain and report on the well-being and situation of the families left behind?

Sir J. Anderson: As the answer to these Questions is rather long, I will, with the permission of the House, postpone it to the end of Questions.

Later—

Sir J. Anderson: When it was decided that for strategical reasons it was necessary to de-militarise the Channel Islands the information before the Government indicated that substantial numbers of he inhabitants would be unwilling to leave their homes, and the conclusion was reached that any scheme for attempting by compulsion or inducement to transplant to this country the whole of the population of the Islands, including those who have been for generations settled on the land, would be both impracticable and undesirable. It was recognised, however, that special facilities should be provided for those who wished to leave, and the arrangements which were at once put into operation were based on the principle that priority should be given to women and children and to those men of military age who, under the Island laws, were liable to service with His Majesty's Forces. The transport made available also enabled numerous other persons to leave the Islands, and as a result between one-fourth and one-third of the total population was brought to this country.
The reference by my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) to a deputation refers apparently to a visit to the Home Office by a representative of the Methodist Church on 28th June—after these arrangements had been carried out—with a request that the policy of the Government should be changed in favour of a policy of total evacuation. It was not possible to comply with this request, and there is no ground at all for the suggestion that there was any remissness in dealing with this matter. As regards the representation of British interests, there was no foreign Consul stationed in the Islands who could be charged with those interests. The United States Consul-General is stationed at Southampton, and he has no means of access to the Islands at the present time. The question whether communication can be established through the Red Cross Association has been taken up with that body. As regards the welfare of the Islanders who came to this country, steps were taken by the Ministry of Health to find accommodation for those who were unable to make their own arrangements and for the support of those without means, and arrangements were made by the Ministry of Labour for helping any persons wishing to find employment. I am glad, also, to say that an influential voluntary committee has been formed for helping these people, for whom the greatest sympathy must be felt.

Mr. Ammon: Is it not a fact that as recently as 21st June, the Lieut.-General was advised, and authority was given by him, to apply a system of evacuation, but that was afterwards cancelled by the Government, leaving only the ordinary mail boat, which used to come twice a week, and a cargo boat with room for only 12 passengers, in order to carry out the evacuation, and that doctors as well as others protested against this and endeavoured to get a proper scheme of evacuation carried out?

Sir J. Anderson: I do not think my hon. Friend is right in suggesting that after the decision to demilitarise the islands there was any change of plans or policy. My Department was in communication with the authorities both in Jersey and in Guernsey, and all the arrangements that were made were made in the closest consultation with the Bailiffs.

Mr. Mander: May I ask whether any funds will be placed at the disposal of the committee which has been set up for the Channel Islanders in this country, and whether arrangements could not be made for the United States Consul-General or some other neutral to go by air to the Channel Islands and make inquiries as to the conditions now existing there among the population?

Sir J. Anderson: I should certainly consider any possible means of obtaining accurate and up-to-date information about conditions in the Islands. As I have explained, the first approach has been made through the Red Cross organisation, and I think we had better await the result of that approach. As to the other question, I think I ought to await any representations from the voluntary committee which has been set up. Immediate needs are being met from Government sources.

Mr. Ammon: Does the right hon. Gentleman not know that posters were pasted up asking people not to be "yellow" and not to allow themselves to be evacuated, which shows that there was some conflict of opinion?

Sir J. Anderson: I am sure there were differences of opinion locally, as there were bound to be on a question of that kind.

Sir R. Glyn: In order to meet the dire necessity of some of these people, do not the Government think it is important to have an official committee in addition to this voluntary committee, so that people who have been engaged on the land can find occupation on the land in this country and be assisted in other ways?

Sir J. Anderson: My hon. Friend referred to "dire necessity." I thought I had make it clear that provision has been made for meeting the actual needs of these people from public funds.

Sir R. Glyn: I did not mean that. A great many of these people do not want to exist on charity, and are anxious to make their contribution, and surely some official scheme for a clearing house could be arranged, so that there could be interchange of views on this matter?

Sir J. Anderson: I should be glad to consider any method which is likely to serve the interests of these unfortunate


people, but I suggest that the committee which has been set up, and which is presided over by a very distinguished native of the Channel Islands, Lord Justice Du Parcq, is the proper body to consider all those matters and make representations to the Government.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is happening to the people who still remain in Jersey and Guernsey?

Sir J. Anderson: I am sure the hon. Member will recognise the difficulty of obtaining authentic information, but I think I am justified in saying that such indications as have reached the Government are of a rather reassuring nature.

Mr. Ammon: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the point about whether arrangements are being made, as is done in the case of nations at war, in order that Channel Islanders may communicate with their friends on this side?

Sir J. Anderson: With great respect, I did deal with that point. I said that an endeavour is being made to secure that through the Red Cross organisation.

Sir Richard Acland: Would the right hon. Gentleman ask the B.B.C. or some other organisation to appeal to all the Channel Islanders to communicate with this committee in Watling Street, because otherwise people cannot find out whether their friends are in this country or not, and I know that this uncertainty is affecting the happiness of people who have been recruited into the Army from my own constituency?

Sir J. Anderson: I will take note of that.

Oral Answers to Questions — EXIT PERMITS (MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT).

Mrs. Tate: asked the Home Secretary the names of Members of the House of Commons to whom exit permits have been granted within the last three months; and for what Government missions such permits were granted?

Sir J. Anderson: It is not possible to ascertain from the records of the Permit Office without undue labour what cases may have been dealt with in the last three months; but if, as I understand, my hon. Friend has in mind the cases of the hon.

Members for St. Marylebone (Captain Cunningham-Reid), Blackpool (Mr. Roland Robinson) and Chatham (Captain Plugge), I may say that the hon. Member for St. Marylebone was granted an exit permit at the request of the Children's Overseas Reception Board, and the other two hon. Members were granted permits for business purposes.

Mrs. Tate: Does my right hon. Friend consider that it is a suitable selection on the part of the Children's Overseas Reception Board to choose as their representative a Member of this House whose Division record is under 5 per cent., whose association has passed a vote of censure upon him, and who also happens to be on the Reserve of Officers, and with regard to the other two Members, was their business of a national character?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

POULTRY AND RABBITS.

Major Carver: asked the Home Secretary whether, in order to conserve valuable food supplies, steps will be taken to deal with poultry and rabbits, etc., which may be abandoned in certain areas owing to compulsory evacuation of the civil population?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I have been asked to reply. I do not anticipate that any considerable numbers of poultry and rabbits will, in fact, be abandoned in the circumstances mentioned. Owners of such stock in the areas in question should make arrangements prior to evacuation for the disposal of their stock either to other breeders or by slaughter and sale for human consumption.

CREDITS FOR FARMERS.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Prime Minister whether he will find time for the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Evesham relating to agriculture?

[That this House notes the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture on the 29th June in connection with credits for farmers, made at the same time as his announcement of the new scale of agricultural prices; understands from the statement that he made on that date that the banking authorities had promised to


help farmers needing assistance to pay increased wages until the time they received the benefit of the new price levels; emphasises the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 2nd July that advances to agriculturists by the clearing banks amounted in the aggregate to about £53,000,000 in the middle of February, 1940; is disturbed to learn from many quarters that these advances are at the rate of five per cent.; notes that the creation of these moneys costs nothing to the banks, apart from the administration through their local branches, and that these advances have been in excess of £50,000,000 for the past five years, notwithstanding that for a greater part of this time the bank rate has stood at a figure of two per cent., and it is apparent that the clearing banks are, and have been for many years, exacting a toll of some £2,500,000 annually from the agriculturists of this country; is of opinion that, on examination, it becomes clearer that at least £1,500,000 of this £2,500,000, which is being charged, cannot be justified; urges on the Government the necessity of saving £1,500,000, which is being paid by the agriculturists to the banks, thus enabling the agriculturists to spend this money on proper hedging, ditching and fencing; notes that the Government's efforts at financial assistance in this direction have been wholly inadequate and deplores the continued technique of half-hearted half measures as a formal gesture; notes that the Minister's words express sympathy and understanding, but that the trend of their actions is otherwise and, recalling recent words uttered by a Minister that the cultivators of the land are the founders and sustainers of civilisation, is of opinion that unless these words are to be deemed meaningless the Ministers concerned will forfeit the confidence which they at present possess.]

Mr. Attlee: No, Sir. I can hold out no hope of a special opportunity being given for discussion of the Motion standing in the name of my hon. Friend.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the all-important point in this Motion is that the banks are still charging 5 per cent. to agricultural borrowers, and that they are not able to put forward any justification for this high rate of interest which they are charging?

Mr. Attlee: The point of the hon. Member's Question was to ask whether time could be given for the Motion.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is Chairman of the Cabinet Committee dealing with agriculture, and is he also aware of how little he knows of what he ought to know?

PRICES.

Mr. Wilfrid Roberts: asked the Minister of Agriculture what he estimates the total sum to be that farmers will receive in a full year as a result of the increased prices recently announced by him?

Mr. Hudson: The estimate which the hon. Member desires me to make calls for gifts of prophecy as to future events which in present circumstances I should be reluctant to attempt.

Sir Percy Harris: Can the Minister give any kind of estimate?

Mr. Hudson: It entirely depends on the weather and the course of the war.

LAND CULTIVATION.

Mr. W. Roberts: asked the Minister of Agriculture the total acreage of derelict land taken over by county war agricultural executive committees up to a recent date?

Mr. Hudson: Up to 8th July, 1940, my consent has been given in respect of applications to take possession of a total area of 32,452 acres. Not all this area could properly be described as derelict land, a considerable part consisting of land which is not being cultivated in accordance with the rules of good husbandry. Separate figures are not available.

Mr. Roberts: Does the Minister expect that a considerably larger acreage will shortly be taken over?

Mr. Hudson: Yes, Sir. No doubt, in the course of the Debate to-day that question will be raised.

Mr. Davidson: Does that include acreage taken over in Scotland?

Mr. Hudson: That is not my responsibility.

FRUIT PRICES.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that many Worcestershire agriculturists are adversely affected by the recent decision of the Fruit Controller in fixing the price of jam at 6½d. per lb., and that upon that basis the price of plums to the grower is to be from £4 to £5 per ton, which in many cases is less than the cost of production, he will confer with the Minister of Food with a view to getting some alteration made in this price, or, alternatively, whether he will take steps to ease the position by some scheme of voluntary help in picking, in view of the high cost involved in picking at the present time?

Mr. Hudson: The information in the hon. Member's Question is in many respects inaccurate. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Food has consulted me as to the maximum retail prices which it would be proper to fix for the principal varieties of jam. He now proposes to make an order in this regard. The prices have been fixed to enable purchases of fruit to be carried out on a price level which will be reasonably remunerative to growers. That for plum jam has been based on the assumption that the price to be paid for plums would be £8 per ton.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the price fixed by the Fruit Controller is uneconomic and will involve all plum growers in a loss? Will he take steps to adjust it?

Mr. Hudson: The price has not yet been fixed, but it shortly will be.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the Minister aware that the Press has stated that this is the price which the Fruit Controller has fixed?

Mr. Hudson: That is why I said that the information in the hon. Member's Question was in many respects inaccurate.

ALLOTMENTS.

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the present situation, he proposes to take any further steps to extend the provision of war-time allotments in urban areas?

Mr. Hudson: Yes, Sir. I have this week addressed a further letter to

councils of boroughs and urban districts in England and Wales informing them that the number of allotments must be substantially increased and that every piece of suitable land that is available for the purpose must, if possible, be brought into cultivation for allotments. I have impressed upon local authorities that they must provide the driving power in their respective areas, first to stimulate the demand for allotments and, secondly, to satisfy it. I have also urged them to create a body of local opinion which will ensure that in private gardens vegetables are substituted for flowers. I am also providing financial assistance up to £2 an acre where local authorities use for temporary war allotments laid acquired by them for other purposes.

Mr. Smith: In the case where an urban district has insufficient land for allotments and is adjacent to a rural district with the land, will co-operation between the two councils take place for this purpose?

Mr. Hudson: Yes, Sir. If any particular case is brought to my notice, I will see what I can do.

Mr. Maxton: In the London area many allotment owners who have been growing crops are unable to obtain water. Can the Minister do anything to make it possible for them to obtain a supply?

Mr. Hudson: One or two cases have been brought to my notice, and I know it is a very real difficulty.

GRASSLAND PLOUGHING SUBSIDY.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the £2 per acre subsidy for approved crops is payable where crops have been condemned and the cultivator has not been at fault; what appeal can be made by cultivators against either condemnation or the withholding of the subsidy; how many appeals have been made; and how long such cultivators have to wait before their appeals are heard and decisions given?

Mr. Hudson: The £2 per acre ploughing grant is payable where lands, which have been under grass for at least seven years, are broken up and brought into a state of cleanliness and fertility and are shown to be capable of producing satisfactory arable crops or of being substantially improved by reseeding. I am not aware of any instance in which these conditions


have been fulfilled and the grant has been withheld because of failure of the crop due to causes outside the control of the farmer. If the hon. Member will supply me with particulars of any cases he has in mind. I will have inquiries made.

FOOD WASTE (POULTRY FEEDING-STUFF).

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he proposes to take to institute a nationally-organised scheme for the collection of food waste, and its conversion into sound feeding-stuff for poultry?

Mr. Hudson: Local authorities and county war agricultural executive committees throughout the country have been requested to arrange in collaboration for the organised collection and use of food waste for feeding to pigs and poultry. The question of facilitating disposal by drying or other treatment is receiving active attention. The county war agricultural executive committees have recently been asked to report on the position, and similar steps have been taken by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply in regard to local authorities. Further action will be considered in the light of these reports.

Oral Answers to Questions — REDISTRIBUTION OF ELECTORATE.

Sir Reginald Blair: asked the Prime Minister whether he will include in the Bill to prolong the life of the present Parliament a provision for the setting up of a commission for the redistribution of the electorate?

Mr. Attlee: I fully realise the importance of the point raised by my hon. Friend, but I am not in a position to make a statement on the subject at the present time.

Sir R. Blair: Is my right hon. Friend content, in the interests of democracy, to have his own vote, certainly in a very nice constituency, only worth one-twentieth or one-fortieth of the value of a vote in other constituencies in this country?

Mr. Attlee: The hon. Member will realise that the question of a redistribution of the electorate must obviously have some relation to the redistribution of the population.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR SUPPLIES (ORGANISATION).

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister without Portfolio what arrangements are being made as regards the Anglo-French supply organisation in this country and in the United States of America as a result of recent events in France?

The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): The chairman of the Anglo-French Co-ordinating Committee, Monsieur Monnet, who, as an Allied Officer under a joint mandate from the British and French Prime Ministers, has been at the head of the Anglo-French Supply Organisation, tendered his resignation on 3rd July. I wish to express the British Government's sense of its great debt to Monsieur Monnet for his services to this country as well as to France in regard to the general work of the Allied supply organisation and, in particular, the joint purchase of aeroplanes and munitions in the United States of America. The Anglo-French Co-ordinating Committee and the Anglo-French Executives, which served a most useful function so long as Great Britain and France were fighting together as Allies, are now being dissolved. The Anglo-French Purchasing Board, of which Mr. Purvis, the head of the British Purchasing Commission in New York, has been chairman, is also being dissolved. The British Commission will, of course, remain under the very able direction of Mr. Purvis, to deal with the increased and increasing British purchases in the United States of America. In London a small central organisation, in place of the Anglo-French organisation which previously served the purpose, is being established to co-ordinate the demands on the British Purchasing Commission. This organisation will be in the charge of Mr. T. H. Brand and will form a focus for the central consideration of matters of general policy and for the co-ordination of major demands. Arrangements will be made to continue a suitable liaison with our Allies who have purchases to make in North America as part of the common war effort.
Under the allocation of duties between the different Members of the War Cabinet, the organisation comes within my responsibility as chairman of the Production Council; and, with the consent of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Shipping, I have asked the Parliamentary


Secretary of the Ministry of Shipping to exercise a general oversight of the new organisation and to be chairman of a North American Supply Committee, composed of the interested Departments, for the consideration of general questions arising from the purchasing programmes in the United States of America and Canada. I should add that although there was no Anglo-French purchasing organisation in Canada, we have hitherto maintained a British Supply Board in Ottawa which dealt with both British and French orders. This Board is now being wound up on the completion of arrangements whereby the Canadian Department of Munitions and Supply has undertaken to receive notice of our requirements direct from the Supply Departments concerned and to arrange for the placing of these orders and the development of the productive capacity required. We welcome this valuable co-operation on the part of the Canadian Government.

Mr. Parker: Will this British purchasing body buy for the Allied Armies who are fighting with us?

Mr. Greenwood: The intention is, now that the French are out of it, to utilise this new organisation for the purchase of all war supplies required by those Allies still fighting for us.

Oral Answers to Questions — COST OF LIVING.

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the question of meeting all increased costs of raw materials, essential food-stuffs, freights, etc., by direct payment from the Exchequer and thereby stop the constantly-increasing cost of living?

Sir K. Wood: This is a proposal which I cannot adopt. It is open to many objections, as explained in the answer which was given to my hon. Friend's Question of 6th February last.

Mr. Edwards: Does not the Minister agree that this money has to be paid in the last stage, and would it not be an economy to pay it in the first stage so as not to have pay the additional cost plus a good many profits?

Sir K. Wood: The objections stated in the answer to which I referred were that

it would stimulate consumption of all manner of commodities, increase the demand on our shipping and exchange resources, and place a large charge on the Exchequer.

Mr. Edwards: Does not the Minister realise the absurdity of that statement, and will he give it some consideration?

Sir K. Wood: I shall be glad to receive any further representations from my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONTRACTS (BANK CREDITS).

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in his arrangement with banks for providing credits for contractors, he has stipulated for a maximum rate of interest and other charges; if so, what the maximum is; and whether he has undertaken any liability to the banks on account of any such credits granted by them?

Sir K. Wood: I do not consider such a stipulation is necessary, as I am satisfied that the banks have not taken, nor do they wish to take, any advantage of the present emergency. No undertaking has been given on behalf of tine Government on account of any such credits.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Is the Chancellor aware that the rates charged by the banks under this arrangement for which the Government have ultimately to pay, are considered by many people unnecessarily high?

Sir K. Wood: I have not received any complaints about the matter. If the right hon. Gentleman will send me cases, I will look into them.

Mr. Shinwell: Should the rates of interest be any higher than the Government are prepared to pay to those who are ready to lend money to the State?

Sir K. Wood: This arrangement is working perfectly well, and there have been no complaints of any kind.

Mr. Stokes: Is it not about time the Government took control of the nation's credit?

Mr. De le Bère: Is not there a great deal of unfinished thought about the whole business?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

RAILWAY PASSENGERS (ACCOMMODATION).

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make arrangements with the main line railway companies that vacant first-class seats, where all third-class seats are occupied, shall be made available for the wives of soldiers, sailors and airmen as well as for the men, in view of the strong desire for this?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Montague): I would remind the hon. Member that the latitude given to the railways' staff in this matter is contingent upon the train being seriously over-crowded. It applies to wives of soldiers, sailors and airmen as to other members of the travelling public.

RAILWAY GUARDS (DEFENSIVE WEAPONS).

Mr. Cocks: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will take steps to supply railway guards with weapons of defence?

Mr. Montague: No, Sir. If a railwayman in the course of his civilian duty observes enemy forces, his proper course is to report the fact as quickly as possible at the nearest signal box or station.

Mr. Cocks: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of these trains pass through vulnerable areas and that the guards complain that the only thing with which they have to guard themselves is a lead pencil? If they are held up, how can they report to the nearest signal box?

Mr. Montague: My hon. Friend can be assured that all these considerations have been taken into account.

Sir A. Southby: Has the hon. Gentleman considered mounting a machine gun in some of the express trains as a protection against low-flying aircraft?

Oral Answers to Questions — FEEDING-STUFFS (CONTROL).

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in connection with the introduction of the national feeding-stuffs campaign, he will give an assurance that there will be no discrimination against the small corn dealers and suppliers throughout the country, and that the entire profits derived from the manufacture and distribution of these feeding-stuffs will not be for the sole benefit of the milling combines?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Boothby): I assume my hon. Friend is referring to the Compound and Mixed Feeding Stuffs (Control) (No. 2) Order of 29th June, which prohibits after 15th July the manufacture or preparation for sale, except under licence, of any but a prescribed range of standard compounds and standard mixed feeding-stuffs. This Order applies to all sections of the trade alike, as does the Feeding Stuffs (Maximum Prices) Order of 6th January, 1940, which controls margins of profit on the sale of feeding-stuffs.

Mr. De la Bère: Do we understand from the answer that there will be no bias in favour of the milling combines? Is not my hon. Friend aware that it cannot be contended that the milling combines are the founders and sustainers of civilisation?

Mr. Boothby: I am not quite clear what my hon. Friend means when he talks of the milling combines. Perhaps he will explain to me after Questions.

Sir F. Sanderson: Is it not a fact that in any event the Government take 100 per cent. in Excess Profits Tax?

Mr. Boothby: I hope so.

Mr. De la Bère: That is not the point at all.

Mr. W. Roberts: Has not the margin allowed for combines' feeding-stuffs gone up from 30s. to 45s.?

Mr. Boothby: No, I think my hon. Friend is misinformed. I will send him the precise figure.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Lees-Smith: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal what the business will be for next week?

Mr. Attlee: The business will be as follows:—

Tuesday: Second Reading of the Emergency Powers (Defence) (No. 2) Bill; and in view of the urgency we shall ask the House to consider the Committee and remaining stages on the same day. Committee and remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill. Motion to


approve the Timber (Charges) (No. 1) Order, and the Sulphate of Ammonia (Charges) Order. Committee and remaining stages of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill [Lords], and of the Confirmation of Executors (War Service) (Scotland) Bill [Lorck].

Wednesday: Supply (19th Allotted day); Committee, Scottish Estimates, Agriculture.

Thursday: Supply (20th Allotted day); Report, Ministry of Food.

At 10 o'clock on Wednesday and Thursday, the Committee and Report stages, respectively, of all outstanding Supply Votes will be put from the Chair.

Mr. Maxton: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman would see whether a Supply Day could be provided on which the House might discuss the reports of the Select Committee on National Expenditure, which has sat for the duration of the war and has issued some seven or eight reports which the House has had no opportunity of considering?

Mr. Attlee: An opportunity for that discussion could not be found on a Supply Day, because the last of the Supply Days is next week; but an opportunity will be found. Perhaps the hon. Member will see me about it.

Sir T. Moore: Could the right hon. Gentleman indicate when the Purchase Tax will be considered?

Mr. Attlee: I have no information to give on that point.

Mr. Lipson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government are considering the withdrawal of the Purchase Tax Bill?

Mr. Cocks: May I ask when the House will be given the opportunity of having a full and free Debate upon the international situation, as promised by the Prime Minister a fortnight ago, not in secret session, but in open session?

Mr. Attlee: I do not think any promise was given of a discussion on the international situation. The Prime Minister said there would be a full Debate on the war situation and that it could be made in whatever conditions the House preferred, whether secret or public.

Mr. Davidson: On one of the Supply Days will facilities be given to deal with the question of civil, judicial and hereditary pensions, so that the House may have an opportunity of discussing them?

Mr. Attlee: That question will not arise on any Vote in Supply.

Ordered,
That this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 14, Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Eleven of the Clock."—[Mr. Attlee.]

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn till Tuesday next."—[Mr. Attlee.]

MEMBERS (ACCESS TO HOUSE OF COMMONS).

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, or the Leader of the House, a question concerning the access of Members to this House? On Saturday last it was stated in the public Press that the Regional Commissioners in this country had instructions under which they could close all the roads in their areas to private motorists, and I want to know in what way the Members of this House can demand access to this House as a right in any region where they may be in the event of roads being closed to private motorists. I wish to ask, further, whether we are to be provided forthwith with a proper pass, duly endorsed, a pass which can be recognised throughout the country, and not the sort of pass we are provided with now, which is no pass at all.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member will find that there is a Question on the same subject on the Order Paper to-day which has been postponed till next Tuesday.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: May I ask, then, what is to happen to a Member of this House if during this coming week-end the regulations are in force? How am I, for instance, to gain access to this House without a proper pass?

BILL PRESENTED.

WORKMEN' S COMPENSATION (SUPPLEMENTARY ALLOWANCES) (NO. 2) BILL,

"to provide for the payment of supplementary allowances to workmen entitled to weekly payments by way of compensa-


tion under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925, and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Sir John Anderson; supported by the Attorney-General and Mr. Peake; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 73.]

MID-WESSEX WATER BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Colonial Development and Welfare Bill,
Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Gateshead Gas Bill, with Amendments.

COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT AND WELFARE BILL.

Lords Amendments to be considered upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 74.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE (AIR-RAID WARNINGS).

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That for the remainder of the present Session the following provisions shall have effect as respects the sittings of the House, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of the House—

(a) if, by reason of an air-raid warning being given while the House is sitting, the sitting is suspended, it shall be resumed as soon as may he after the raiders passed signal is given;
(b) if at the time appointed for the meeting of the House on any day an air-raid warning has been given and the raiders passed signal has not been given, the meeting of the House shall be postponed until as soon as may be after the raiders passed signal is given;

Provided that, where the sitting of the House on any day is suspended by virtue of the foregoing paragraph till after the time appointed for the meeting of the House on the following day, this paragraph shall not apply with respect to that following clay and the ordinary practice of the House with respect to overlapping sittings shall apply;
(c) where any sitting of the House is suspended or postponed as aforesaid—

(i) the time at which any business, the consideration of which has not begun, is required by any Standing Order, order or resolution of the House to be taken; and
(ii) the time at which any such business, or any business the consideration of which has begun but has not been completed, is required as aforesaid to be concluded or interrupted;

shall be postponed by the length of the period for which the sitting has been suspended or postponed;
Provided that where at any such sitting private business, or any motion for adjournment under Standing Order No. 8 would, but for this paragraph, have been required to be considered at 7.30 p.m., and the remainder of the business of the House has been disposed of before the time substituted by this paragraph for 7.30 p.m., that private business or motion shall be considered immediately after the conclusion of the remainder of the business;
(d) at any sitting of the House which has been suspended or postponed as aforesaid, any motion or other business which, but for this paragraph, could not have been made or taken without notice, or would have been required to be made or taken at a particular time or at a particular stage of the proceedings, may be made by, or taken at the instance of, a Minister of the Crown without notice and at any other time or other stage of the proceedings."—[Mr. Attlee.]

4.0 p.m.

Sir Hugh O'Neill: When the Lord Privy Seal moved a similar Motion

a week ago I asked you, Mr. Speaker, a question. The reason why I asked that question was that it appeared to me that as that Motion was drawn and as this Motion is drawn to-day, it was not clear whether the suspension of the sitting of the House, in the event of an air raid, was to take place automatically on the warning or not. The right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal replied to me at the time to the effect that the question of whether the sitting should be suspended or not, was a matter of discretion. I think it now appears clearly that that is not so. The Air Raid Precautions Committee of the Houses of Parliament have recommended that, in the event of an air raid warning, the sitting of the House should be automatically and immediately suspended. If that is to be so, I suggest that it would be better to state the fact definitely in this Motion and thereby have it upon the records of the House of Commons rather than that it should merely be contained in the recommendations of the Houses of Parliament A.R.P. Committee.
I have carefully read the submission of the Houses of Parliament A.R.P. Committee which was made to you, Mr. Speaker, since this matter was raised last week, and I see that any discretion placed on you, or on the Chairman of Ways and Means to suspend or not to suspend the sitting might involve a very difficult and responsible decision. The A.R.P. Committee have represented that it is too great a responsibility to place upon the Chair, and I must say I agree that there is a great deal in that view. At the same time, one must remember that in the factories which are producing war materials the present rule is that work must go on, even after an air-raid warning has been given, and that the same difficulty and responsibility rests upon whoever has to decide in those factories whether there is a case for the suspension of work or not. In view of the fact that I raised a question last week on this matter, it is only right that I should say now that I fully realise the difficulty and that, on the whole, I think, probably the suggestion of the A.R.P. Committee is right and that, in existing circumstances, we in the House of Commons cannot do otherwise than adjourn the sitting, as soon as an air-raid warning has been given.

4.3 p.m.

Mr. Cocks: I do not think it is in accordance with the dignity of this Chamber that, directly an air-raid warning is sounded, we should immediately and expeditiously disappear down to the dungeons beneath. I feel, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Antrim (Sir H. O'Neill) has said, that the rule which applies in factories, that work should not cease until the actual gunfire is heard, should also apply here. Although I am not pressing the point, I, personally, would prefer to go even further and to sit on, until it became physically impossible to sit here any longer. I heard with deep respect what you, Mr. Speaker, said about the responsibility of the Chair in this matter. Of course, it is not a responsibility which should be placed on the occupant of the Chair, whether on you, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Deputy-Chairman, or one of the panel of Temporary Chairmen. I think there is a great deal to be said for that view. Surely it is this House itself which ought to decide whether to adjourn or not. As I see it, we shall be seated here debating and gunfire will be heard. The Chief Whip, having sensed the feeling of the House, will then at the appropriate moment, move in the ordinary way "That this House do now adjourn."
I think that is the way to do it—to have not an automatic adjournment but an adjournment moved by someone in charge, such as the Chief Whip. If the Chief Whip were already down in the dungeons, it might be moved by somebody else. Another point made previously was that we should remember that there were others in the House besides Members. As far as the occupants of the gallery are concerned, there is no compulsion on them to stay, although I expect that they would stay out of curiosity. There is no compulsion on anybody to remain. Even the officials of the House might be permitted to go, although I think, if their feelings were consulted, it would be found that they preferred to share our danger as well as our dignity.

4.6 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: When this question was being discussed last week it was pointed out that it would show very poor leadership

on our part, if we decided to rush to the cellars when an air-raid warning came, although only the day before the Home Secretary had said that workers in munition factories must continue their work irrespective of whether there was an air-raid warning or not, until the antiaircraft gunfire was heard. I am not clear about the exact meaning of this Motion and I wish to ask you, Sir, whether you, in your capacity as Speaker, are to decide that we shall go off to the cellars on an air-raid warning being given, or whether the sitting of the House will be automatically suspended.

Mr. Speaker: I think the House generally understands that when a "red warning" is given, that is to say a warning that an air raid is imminent, I shall suspend the sitting of the House immediately.

Mr. Lees-Smith: Since last week, my hon. Friends and I have gone into this question, especially in the light of the guidance which we received from you, Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday last and, as far as we are concerned, we make no objection to this Motion.

Sir Ralph Glyn: May I ask whether the rules which are now to govern the proceedings of this House in air raids will also govern the proceedings in Government Departments? If civil servants in Government offices in this neighbourhood are to have a discretion in the matter of remaining at work, as workers in munition factories are doing, it will make a difference to our attitude.

4.9 p.m.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: Is it not possible that this matter could be left, as the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) suggested, to the discretion of the Chief Whip? A great number of people in this House would be very ashamed if they left this Chamber when there was not any imminent danger and the effect would be very bad all through the country. I suggest, with all deference, that when the occasion arises it should be left to the House itself to decide whether or not the situation is so dangerous as to require the suspension of the sitting.

Mr. Mander: Would not the difficulty arise in that case, that you would be placing the responsibility on another person, namely,


the Chief Whip. If the question were left to the decision of the House there might be a Division—the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) would be sure to challenge one—and the Division would occupy a quarter of an hour, and then it might be too late.

Mr. Lewis: May I point out that the comparison with munition factories hardly holds good for this reason, that no Member of Parliament is compelled to attend this House? We need not come here. In the case of a particular Debate, we need not be in the Chamber and therefore there is no comparison.

4.12 p.m.

Sir William Davison: The case of members in the Government service in ordinary offices is quite different from this case. Here it is not a question so much of danger from bombs or splinters, as of the fact that this Chamber is glass-roofed and any bomb falling within 100 yards of it would probably blind half the Members of the House of Commons. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It might be a good thing if it cut off the tongues of half of them, but I think to have them blinded and groping about, while retaining their tongues, would be worse than anything.

4.13 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: This House ought to show the country an example in discipline. What is being proposed here by some hon. Members is that we should all become anarchists, that each should decide for himself and do what he wants to do. It may be that Members of this House are eager to have the bombs bursting next door to them, but I do not believe it, and there is no reason why we should pose before the country as if we were anxious to be martyrs in that respect. As was pointed out the other day, if air-raid precautions are to be effective, they must be co-ordinated, and they do not depend on our knowledge within this building but on the knowledge of the authorities who decide when people ought to take shelter. If we ask the people outside to submit to discipline and to behave in an orderly fashion in connection with air-raid precautions, we ourselves should show an example.

Mr. Naylor: There is one possibility which has been overlooked, namely, that the bombs may be falling before any warning is given and all the Members who are in this House put out of commission or blown to pieces. What would the procedure be in that case? Would it be in order for anyone who escaped to move to report Progress and ask leave to sit again?

Mr. Cocks: On the point of procedure, may I recall that in the history of this House there was an occasion when the Speaker wanted to adjourn the House and was forcibly held in the Chair by Members? Would that precedent be applicable in this case?

Question put, and agreed to.

Ordered,
That for the remainder of the present Session the following provisions shall have effect as respects the sittings of the House, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of the House—

(a) if, by reason of an air-raid warning being given while the House is sitting, the sitting is suspended, it shall be resumed as soon as may be after the raiders passed signal is given;
(b) if at the time appointed for the meeting of the House on any day an air-raid warning has been given and the raiders passed signal has not been given, the meeting of the House shall be postponed until as soon as may be after the raiders passed signal is given;

Provided that, where the sitting of the House on any day is suspended by virtue of the foregoing paragraph till after the time appointed for the meeting of the House on the following day, this paragraph shall not apply with respect to that following day and the ordinary practice of the House with respect to overlapping sittings shall apply;
(c) where any sitting of the House is suspended or postponed as aforesaid—

(i) the time at which any business, the consideration of which has not begun, is required by any Standing Order, order or resolution of the House to be taken; and
(ii) the time at which any such business, or any business the consideration of which has begun but has not been completed, is required as aforesaid to be concluded or interrupted;

shall be postponed by the length of the period for which the sitting has been suspended or postponed:
Provided that where at any such sitting private business, or any motion for adjournment under Standing Order No. 8 would, but for this paragraph, have been required to be considered at 7.30 p.m.,


and the remainder of the business of the House has been disposed of before the time substituted by this paragraph for 7.30 p.m., that private business or motion shall be considered immediately after the conclusion of the remainder of the business;
(d) at any sitting of the House which has been suspended or postponed as aforesaid, any motion or other business which, but for this paragraph, could not have been made or taken without notice, or would have been required to be made or taken at a particular time or at a particular stage of the proceedings, may be made by, or taken at the instance of, a Minister of the Crown without notice and at any other time or other stage of the proceedings."

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[18TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1940.

CLASS VI.

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £2,469,649, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1941, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, and of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, including grants and grants in aid and expenses in respect of agricultural education and research, eradication of diseases of animals, and improvement of breeding, etc., of live stock, land settlement, improvement of cultivation, drainage, etc., regulation of agricultural wages, agricultural credits, and marketing; fishery organisation, research and development, control of diseases of fish, etc.; and sundry other services including certain remanet subsidy payments."—[NOTE: £1,600,000 has been voted on account.]

The Chairman: The Committee will have noted that there are two other Motions on the Order Paper dealing with cognate matters, in other words, coming under the head of agriculture. It has been represented to me that it would be a convenience if the discussion on the Motion which I have just read were extended to cover matters coming under the other two. The Committee are aware by this time that that is not an uncommon practice, but is permitted by the Chair

only with the general assent of the Committee. I take it that there is no dissent.

Committee signified assent.

4.16 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I will begin, if I may, by thanking the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) and other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen for agreeing to postpone this Debate from the date originally fixed. I was of the opinion, and I hope that the Committee will agree with me, that it would be more convenient to postpone the Debate until after the new wages had come into operation and prices had been announced, for then we could discuss the problem of agriculture as a whole. The problems that face me and my colleague the Secretary of State for Scotland are very different from those which faced our predecessors last year, both before the war and when the war first started, and very different indeed from the position in the last war. It is perhaps natural for people to compare at first glance the position that we face to-day with that of the nation in 1917, but although it may be natural to do that, it is very misleading, and if the Committee will forgive me, I should like to spend a little time to develop this aspect of the matter, because I think it will enable us to understand and to see the problem in its proper perspective, and to get a better idea of the means we have available and the methods by which we hope to overcome our present difficulties.
The food production campaign of 1917, with which the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) will always be so honourably associated in the history of this country, had to be hastily improvised in order to meet a critical situation which, I think it is fair to say, had not wholly been foreseen. The campaign was conceived on very sound lines, and it was carried through with the utmost energy. Inevitably, it concentrated mainly on increasing the production of cereals and potatoes in order to save the country from actual starvation, it gave less attention than we should to-day to the problem of milk supply, and it more or less ignored livestock. It did, however, achieve very notable results indeed. The right hon. Gentleman would, I am sure, be the first to admit that the condition of British agriculture that he found in 1917 was very different from what my predecessor had


to face in 1938–39, or, indeed, from what I and my colleagues have to face to-day. Agriculture may not have been completely prosperous, but it certainly was comparatively prosperous, in the years before 1914. In the first months and years of the last war agricultural prices rose very rapidly and very considerably. The problem that the right hon. Gentleman had to face was really that of persuading the farmers of this country to change over from one profitable form of production in order to increase the production of other goods which were equally profitable.
The problem that we face to-day is very different, because farming, in the years immediately before this war, both in this country and over a very large portion of the world, was, comparatively speaking, unprofitable, despite considerable subsidies granted for individual products. Farmers and landowners had seen their capital steadily reduced in the years after the last war, both by bad harvests and by poor prices, and, in many cases, by what I might call almost penal taxation. In addition to that, the Government, rightly or wrongly, decided, at the beginning of this war, upon a rigid policy of price control, with a view to preventing, or at all events to minimising, so far as possible, any rise in the cost of living. Again, before 1914, we had areas in this country which were engaged on mixed farming, and very considerable areas were under the plough. By 1938 and 1939, large numbers of farmers in this country had forgotten how to plough. Many of those arable acres had gone down to grass, and large numbers of producers, especially milk producers, were coming to rely more and more for their production upon cheap supplies of imported feeding-stuffs. In the light of these very different circumstances I am inclined to think—in fact, I am sure—that my predecessor's policy was the right one, namely, to start off by trying to get increased arable acreage by asking the farmers of this country to plough up an additional 2,000,000 acres. Despite the bad weather, this total, as hon. Members know, has actually been exceeded.
In view of the lovely weather which we have been having during the last two weeks, I find it difficult—and perhaps many hon. Members will agree with me—to imagine and to remember the terrific handicap to farming operations imposed

by the unprecedented weather of last winter on agriculture as a whole. Despite that handicap of bad weather, unless something unforeseen happens between now and harvest we believe that we shall obtain a greater proportion of increase in our total farm production in the first 12 months of this war than we were able to obtain in the whole of the last 18 months of the Great War, in spite of the difficulties. I can rightly claim that the farming community as a whole are to be congratulated on having achieved that result, and particularly the members of the various county war agricultural executive committees. Members of the committees, and indeed members of my own Department throughout the country, put in many hours of unremitting labour, and their efforts are deserving of high praise.
Great as that achievement has been, I should be the first to admit that it might have been greater, but I do not think we could have got any material increase in the first 12 months unless the country as a whole had been faced last September, as it was in 1917, with the realisation that unless we got a very large increase of home food production we might be faced with starvation. Obviously that was the case.
Not the least of the contrasts between last time and this time is in regard to the actual potential capacity of my own Department. In 1914, it was one of the smallest Government Departments. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs was right when he set up the brand new Food Production Department in order to carry through, in a very short time, his great campaign. Of course, since then, my Department has grown to be very large, covering very nearly every activity of agriculture. It was possible at the beginning of this war, without taking on any very large number of extra staff, to turn the Department into a very efficient food production Department on the same lines as in the last war. We had the advantage of the experience of that war, and of the mistakes that had been made. I hope that we have succeeded in avoiding some of those mistakes, at all events. We have the further very great advantage that there has been an enormous increase in technical and scientific knowledge of the possibilities of agriculture, since what was done by the right hon. Gentleman.


Someone may possibly say that I am being complacent, but I think I can claim with some justice that the Department to-day merits the name of a food production department.
Now, perhaps, I may deal with the difference between the situation last September and the situation to-day. My predecessor last September laid down his programme on certain assumptions, which were drawn out after consultation had taken place with various Government Departments, including, more particularly, the Service Departments, chiefs of staff, the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Shipping.

Mr. Lloyd George (Carnarvon Boroughs): And the Treasury.

Mr. Hudson: I have had nothing to do with the Treasury in the few weeks that I have been in my Department. His estimates of what would be required from British agriculture were based on the assumption that we should be able to go on importing, not perhaps on our pre-war scale but on a scale approaching it; at all events, on a considerable scale; that shipping would be available, and that our anti-submarine devices would defeat the German submarine campaign. Well, we have actually been able to import on something approaching a satisfactory scale. The Ministry of Food has built up reserves of food and imported feeding-stuffs, and, as I have said, we anticipate that there will be a net increase. Therefore, I think it was sound policy on my predecessor's part to secure a general all-round increase in production in British agriculture. At all events, it has resulted in our having to-day a very large reserve of meat on the hoof and also a vastly increased amount of cereals in our stacks and our barns, which at all events ought to help us to meet any contingency which may arise this winter.
But the problem which we have to face to-day is a very different one. It is true that it is due to the results of the policy of the Ministry of Food and the efforts of our merchant fleet that we have intact adequate supplies of food in this country at this moment and that we have also a good reserve, but if we are prudent, we must face the possibility that we may not always continue to be so fortunate, and we must, therefore, take immediate and

energetic steps to ensure that, as far as is humanly possible, the people of this country will have enough food, even if our present import programme has to be seriously curtailed. Before we can do that, however, we must ask ourselves, What is the minimum upon which the people of this country could be maintained? If we are to do that, I think we shall have to ask the scientists to make use of the very considerable amount of research in this matter which has been undertaken in this country in the course of the last 20 years. The scientists tell us that the population of this country could live in a condition of health, able to work hard and to produce munitions and to fight on a very different diet indeed to that to which we are accustomed, and a diet which has the further merit that the greater proportion of it could be grown in this country, and consequently the provision of which would require a considerably smaller import programme. I do not know whether it would be a very palatable diet until we got used to it, but at all events the Committee may be relieved to know that I have put in a plea that it should be supplemented by beer. The task, therefore, of the Ministry of Food and the other Departments is to inform the Agricultural Departments exactly what they wish us to produce and, equally important to tell us what they do not want produced. We shall then be able to inform the county executives, and I am perfectly certain from everything I have seen in the course of the last few weeks that we shall get the necessary response from the farmers.
Farmers will be asked in many cases drastically to alter their normal production, and in all cases materially to increase it. I am sure the Committee and the country realise that if they are to be asked to do that, and if we are to expect them to give the necessary response, then they must be assured of a market for the increased products that they will be asked to give. It is also fair that they should be assured of a reasonable return for the increased expenditure and the largely increased force of labour that they will undoubtedly have to take on. Although we are dependent on the Ministry of Food for telling us what they want, we have to translate the actual instructions and, therefore, my immediate task, and one to which we have been devoting ourselves energetically in the last few weeks, is to


try and make sure that we have the necessary machinery—in the wide sense of the term—ready and geared up to enable the programme to be carried out as soon as it has been decided upon. I use "machinery" in its wide sense and not in the sense of an implement.
Perhaps the Committee would be interested if I explained in a little more detail exactly the sort of machinery which we have in mind in order to satisfy as far as possible the potential food requirements of the nation. First, and most important, of course, are the county war executive committees. These committees were set up by my predecessor and were given the task of obtaining, an additional 2,000,000 acres of arable acreage. A quota was given to every county, a sort of target at which to aim. The general idea was equality of sacrifice and each farmer was expected, broadly speaking, to plough up the same sort of proportion of his grass land. As I have already said, the committees have achieved that aim, and, indeed, a little bit more. Of course, the problem which they have to face now is a very different one. It is very much more detailed and more difficult, because, although agriculture is essentially a long-term programme, the crisis through which we are passing inevitably means that we have to take a number of decisions at very short notice, and we may very often have to start new policies in respect of particular areas or particular crops without any very considerable delay.
It seems to me—and I think I can say that the experience of the last fortnight in the Department has convinced me that I was right—that it would be a great advantage if I could appoint a body of prominent individuals who would travel continuously round the country visiting these committees and who would be able to explain by word of mouth, which is much better than by forms or documents, to the various committees exactly what is wanted and why we are trying to do this, that or the other; and at the same time, equally valuable, to come back and report to me again by word of mouth what are the particularly new problems of this or that committee so that we can find remedies. I have called those gentlemen my personal liaison officers. Their names have been published, and I think they command general respect in the farming community. I am deeply indebted

to them for the large amount of work they have done. They have put in a great amount of travelling and I am quite sure that any success we have in getting increased food production will be very largely through their efforts.
I have already said in a speech that I made the other day that this old idea—not a very old one; it is last year's idea—of equality of sacrifice would have to be abandoned. What we have to do now, and what indeed we are doing, is to carry out a survey of each individual farm in this country with a view to seeing not merely how much extra food production we can get from the farm, as a whole, but how much we can get from each individual field. It is quite clear that in some cases a man may be required to plough up very nearly the whole of his land and in another case he may be required to plough none, because he may want to transfer the stock from the first farm to the second, and therefore the idea of equality of sacrifice must go by the board. In order to enable the county committees to make that detailed survey it will obviously be necessary to strengthen the personnel, and I thought that the most useful thing I could do would be to place at their disposal all the scientific, technical and educational staff on which I could lay my hands.
The idea underlying the survey is that each farmer's problem shall be discussed with him by the officer concerned and by the members of the district committee, and that he shall be helped wherever possible to decide how his production shall be increased and, as I said, how the production of each individual field on his farm can be increased. In our instructions to the county committees we have given them some general guidance as to the sort of methods we have in mind. In one case it may be a matter of increasing the arable acreage; in another case it may be one of the various methods of improving grass land, and in another it may be both, while in another case it may be a matter of bringing into cultivation derelict or semi-derelict lands. My committees have extremely full powers and they can, if necessary, take over farms. They can take over considerable tracts of country and they can take over individual fields of farms. The committees have very full powers indeed, and I am pressing them to exercise those powers.
I will say one word about that matter later on when I come to the question of fertilisers. I have been round to these county committees as fast as I can, and I have been over half the counties in England. As was to be expected, certain changes are necessary. Changes have been made in some cases and in other cases some changes will be made. Taking the committees by and large, I found them realising now the changed conditions, realising the importance of the functions which they have to perform and willing and ready to get on with their jobs energetically and loyally.

Mr. John Morgan: Does the Minister mean changes in personnel?

Mr. Hudson: Yes.

Mr. Morgan: Shifting people, in other words?

Mr. Hudson: Yes.

Sir Patrick Hannon: Does the Minister suggest that he can change their personnel?

Mr. Hudson: Yes. We have changed some chairmen and members, and in one case, I think, we have instructed them to dismiss the whole of their district committee.

Mr. Lambert: Does the Minister propose that the war agricultural committees shall direct the farmer in what he is to produce in each particular field?

Mr. Hudson: In certain cases, yes. Quite clearly, what will happen is that the Ministry of Food will ask them to grow an increased acreage of some particular crop, potatoes, for example. Clearly, that increased acreage of potatoes, if it is to be of any good from the point of view of increasing the total food production, must be a new and additional acreage and not merely an acreage withdrawn from some other crop. As far as we see at present, we shall divide up the additional acreage among the counties which are suitable for growing potatoes and where the farmers know how to deal with potatoes. It will be the task of the committee of allocating that additional land among the farmers and they will say to the particular farmers, "You will grow a certain

crop." I am glad that that particular point was brought up, because it brings home to the Committee the enormously increased work which can be done and the necessity for my taking this technical staff away from the existing institutions, concentrating them on the job on the fields and trying to work out how they can best improve the land in a particular locality. The Committee will perhaps forgive me if I do not go into this in detail, because I have a very wide field to cover. The Parliamentary Secretary will be able to supply the details later. I have gone round the committees, and they have told me that the farmers, in the overwhelming majority of cases, have expressed their willingness to co-operate. A minority there is bound to be who refuse, and who are not farming properly. In their cases, the committee may have to take over the farms, to find alternative tenants, or to deal with individual portions of the farms, but, on the whole, we have found great readiness to comply with our requests, which I think is a good augury for the coming autumn.
I have said that this will involve a considerable increase in our arable acreage during the coming autumn and winter over and above the 2,000,000 acres increase obtained by my predecessor. That will involve considerably increased demands for labour and machinery, I will say a word more about labour in a moment. I referred earlier to some of the contrasts between the state of affairs in 1914 and to-day. In the last war it was calculated that there were between 300,000 and 400,000 more people employed on the land of this country than to-day, but, against that, we had then hardly any tractors Last June the number of tractors employed on farms in this country was about 53,000. In the spring of last year my predecessor decided to create a substantial reserve of machinery. He entered into an agreement with the Ford Motor Company for the delivery of 3,000 tractors in the ensuing six months. The advantage of this was that the Ford Company were immediately enabled to put their factory on to increased production. Their output was more than doubled, and this enabled the farmers of this country to obtain the further advantage that the price of the tractors, owing to the scale on which they were being manufactured, was kept down. I should like to pay a tribute to the Ford Motor


Company for the very practical help they have given us during all this campaign, not merely in the matter of providing tractors but in other ways. To cut a long story short, there were 53,000 tractors on the farms of this country last June; to-day there are nearly 20,000 more. If replacements are left out of account, there is a net increase of between 17,000 and 18,000, and I am glad to say that the number is increasing to-day at approximately the same rate.
We have provided not only a considerable increase in the number of tractors, but, what is equally important, a considerable increase in the number of implements. Many people write gaily to the papers about increasing the number of tractors, but they forget that tractors are no good unless you have implements to draw behind them. The difficulty of getting implements is greater than that of getting tractors, because of the difficulty of getting steel. We have ordered a considerable number of heavy track-laying tractors from overseas, the first of which are now being delivered, and we have taken steps to supplement existing orders by further orders. I have said already that it is no use having tractors without implements. Equally, it is no use having tractors without tractor drivers. As tractor-driving is quite a heavy occupation, a man cannot be expected to plough from daylight to dark, or in some cases even after dark, day after day and week after week. Hon. Members will no doubt have noticed in the Press a number of letters on this subject. Yesterday, for example, I read the following:
If we want to increase our output we must double our machinery or work our existing machinery double time. These factors are still officially unrecognised, but they control our output. There is still just time for the expert training of drivers to double-man all machinery during the coming autumn.
Evidently the writers of letters like that are under the impression that we have taken no steps at all. As a matter of fact, we have already issued the necessary instructions to county executive committees. Perhaps the Committee will allow me to read the following extracts:
In the Minister's view it is of the utmost importance that all possible progress should be made, before the winter, with preparation for the 1941 crops. To this end the tractors at the disposal of the committee and a proportion, if not all, of those owned by agricultural contractors, must be kept working during the whole of the hours of daylight, and even

longer if necessary. There therefore, be a demand for tractor drivers, not only to man the tractors that are at present idle, but also to provide for double-manning in many cases, and the Minister would be glad if your committee would arrange for the necessary training work to be undertaken during the next few weeks.
We have also given the committees power to incur the necessary expenditure, and to pay the trainees during their time of training, and we have suggested that they should draw upon university students and people of that age. We can, I think, look forward with reasonable certainty, therefore, to having sufficient tractors and drivers this autumn for any programme of ploughing that may be necessary to fulfil the Ministry of Food requirements. I am also making an order giving the county committees power of control over all agricultural machinery contractors who are at present in business. That will prevent overlapping and wasteful dispersion of labour.
I turn to the question of labour, which is one of the most serious of the difficulties that face us to-day. When I was first appointed I was told that agriculture had lost about 300,000 men since the last war, and 70,000 more since last September. As hon. Members know, to meet this difficulty, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour imposed a standstill order preventing anyone at present engaged in agriculture from leaving the industry, and, what is even more important, he promised to take steps to restore to agriculture men from other industries with previous agricultural experience. It so happens, and it was undoubtedly a very great pity, that, for unavoidable reasons, it was necessary to announce the prospective increased agricultural wages before the corresponding increase in agricultural prices could be published. The increase of wages undoubtedly came as a serious psychological shock to the farmers. They wondered how, with their already diminished resources, nearly at the end of an agricultural year, they were to pay the increased wages.
In addition to this, the hay harvest, although of extremely good quality, was very early and comparatively light, and, therefore, made very little demands for extra labour. The result is that there has not so far been the increased demand for labour which the Minister of Labour and I had anticipated. But if the


increased food production, and, particularly, the increased ploughing-up campaign which will be necessary, is to be carried out in time, it is clear that a considerably increased amount of labour will have to be employed, and I have been at pains to impress on my committees that, although they have no power to order a farmer to take on labour, they have power—and they must exercise it—to compel a farmer to do things which will involve his taking on labour. In view of the increased wages, farmers were extremely reluctant to take on unskilled labourers, who clearly could not be expected to be worth these increased wages. In order to get over that difficulty, the Minister of Labour and I have agreed to authorise the Central Wages Board to set new rates for what I might call learners, at prices below the full rate for a skilled worker, for a reasonable period, which will be sufficient to enable the men to become skilled. We have inserted a provision that this can be done only where both sides, the farmers and the workers, agree.

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: Would the right hon. Gentleman say how we are going to house the extra labour?

Mr. Hudson: I am coming to that. I have already referred to the inevitable delay in issuing the new prices. These prices will enable the farmers now to see daylight in respect of the crops grown this year. I should not be doing my duty, however, if I failed to emphasise that there is at present considerable financial stringency, so far, at all events, as certain sections of the community are concerned. I know that many people believe that, because subsidies were paid to farmers for years before the war, farming has automatically become profitable. I think the truth is, in a great number of cases, at any rate, that the subsidies began only after the damage had been done. Although those subsidies may have been sufficient to enable the farmers to continue, they were not sufficient to make up the capital losses already incurred. The fact is that the capital at the disposal of the landlords and the farmers has been steadily going down year after year. One of the things that concern me at present is how on earth many of the landlords are

to be enabled to carry on and to incur the increased expenditure on repairs and maintenance which the increased wages will involve at present prices. It is a very serious problem, and one of which I cannot offer any solution at present, but it is very present in our minds. Somehow, if we want to keep the buildings maintained and the cottages in repair, and to get the landlords to do the drainage, we shall have to find some solution.

Mr. De la Bère: It really is an unfinished thought.

Mr. Hudson: The farms of this country can be divided roughly—and they are being divided by the survey—into three classes—(a) good, (b) satisfactory to moderate, (c) bad. Broadly speaking, judging by the reports I have got from the committees I have already visited, the greatest scope for increased food production must be looked for in the (b) farms, those that are at present satisfactory to moderate, raising themselves up to the level of the good ones. I am also bound to say that many farmers come along and say—and I believe it to be true—"The prices you have announced for this year are sufficient to pay our costs, but I am afraid they are not sufficient to enable us in all cases to carry on that improved cultivation of our farms that we should like to do. We know our cultivation has been getting worse every year. We are only too anxious to do what you want, but, frankly, the new prices, even though they are fairly good, are not sufficient to enable us to take on the extra labour." It is a very great problem, and is one which is being put up to me practically every time. My reply has been, that we have been in consultation with the banking authorities and they have promised to do everything in their power to help the farmer to increase food production. My answer has been to the committees that the first resort of the good farmer is to the banks through the ordinary channels for additional overdrafts, and in the case of the farmer who is not credit-worthy, then the committee must make the fullest possible use of the existing agricultural requisites scheme. I propose to go a step further. I am going to introduce a Bill, I hope in the course of the next few days, to enable the county committees to serve a notice on a man to do a thing, and, if he does not comply within a


reasonably short time, to go in and do the job themselves and recover the cost from the ensuing crop or otherwise. That power which they have not at present will extend to such diverse cases as that of the man who does not exterminate his rats or rabbits and to undertaking cultivation for a man where he is either unable or unwillng to bring the property or farm up to a proper state of cultivation. That ought to enable a great deal to be done.

Mr. Lloyd George: Will it extend to the buying of fertilisers?

Mr. Hudson: I am coming to that.

Mr. Bossom: How will the farmer get the personnel to do all this?

Mr. Hudson: One of the most encouraging symptoms of the whole situation that I have found from the county agricultural committees is that, although a great many of them have already turned out a great number of farmers and terminated their tenancy, there seems to be, with the exception of a few areas, no lack of men willing to come forward and take on the farms.

Mr. Granville: Who will pay for the special work?

Mr. Hudson: I am not allowed to go into details, as it would require legislation, but I am satisfied that the committees require these powers at the moment to enable them to get on with the job, and most of them, when I told them what I proposed, agreed that it would enable them to do a very great deal more than they are doing at present. If further powers are necessary, we shall not hesitate to come along and ask for them. One of the other difficulties in facing the question of employing increased labour is the matter that was referred to just now of the housing shortage. In a great number of areas, especially those which have gone down to grass since the last war, many of the cottages which used to exist have tumbled down or have been condemned, and there is a very grave housing shortage indeed. Even in those areas where numbers of men have been called up either as Reservists or as members of the Territorials, their cottages are occupied by their wives and families, and naturally are not available for any new labour that has to be introduced into the district. We have several schemes in view, in co-operation with my right hon. Friend the

Minister of Health, to help to overcome this, details of which I hope to publish from time to time.
Another important item in our increased food production campaign is, of course, the provision of fertilisers. There we are very much more fortunate than we were in the last war. We have available many times more fertiliser than was then available, and in the case of lime in particular the supply is supposed to be unlimited. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs will remember the great difficulty there was in carrying out the proposals in the last war to increase lime and how they broke down because of lack of labour and transport. But we have supplies at the present moment, and hon. Members will agree with me that it would not be in the public interest to disclose the exact figures. The point I want to make is, that although we have supplies in fairly big quantities, there is not enough, and we shall sooner or later—sooner, probably—have to decide what is the best use to make of these fertilisers. In particular, we shall have to weigh up the advantages of ploughing up more land and using fertilisers for that land against the increase of food production that we should obtain if we used the same amount of fertilisers on land already arable, and which, in many cases, is at present below its maximum productive capacity. I want to say that because it imposes a limit to the amount of land that can properly be ploughed up. There is a very great increase in ploughed-up land, but the total is not susceptible of unlimited use.

Mr. Lloyd George: What about the phosphates?

Mr. Hudson: I will give the right hon. Gentleman the details.

Sir P. Hannon: In view of the invasion of France and the separation of North Africa, does my right hon. Friend anticipate difficulty in providing phosphates for fertilisers?

Mr. Hudson: I would rather not give details, but I shall be glad to give my hon. Friend what information I can. It is an extremely important point, because of the probability that we shall require a largely increased amount of potatoes. I am afraid I have already detained the Committee unduly long. There is still a


number of points with which I would have liked to have dealt. I answered the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) this afternoon about allotments, giving him the latest details of the circular that we have issued stirring up local authorities and telling them that they must get more allotments and stimulate the demand for allotments, and must also take measures to supply that demand after it has been stimulated. There is the work of the Domestic Food Producers' Council under the chairmanship of my Noble Friend Lord Bingley, which is doing extremely valuable work along cognate lines. There are the pig clubs, which my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Drewe) is fathering so successfully, though I do not know whether "fathering" is the right word. I have these pig clubs particularly at heart, because they serve two purposes. On the one hand, they enable household waste and scrap to be used which would otherwise be wasted, and in the second place, if they develop as much as I hope they will, they will go some way at all events towards making good the inevitable reduction in the pig population which otherwise would have to occur owing to the shortage of imported feeding-stuffs.
Then there is the large and important problem of drainage, and I will leave my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to deal more fully with that. I would only say that included in the Bill to which I have already referred will be provision to enable a grant to be made of 50 per cent. of the cost of tile drainage up to a maximum of £7 10s. an acre. County committees have already been authorised, in anticipation of Parliamentary sanction, to go ahead with the making of the necessary preliminary arrangements in all cases where the installation of such drainage would be of advantage to the production of the crop next year.

Mr. Turton: Will that be the limit for grant or expenditure?

Mr. Hudson: The limit for grant, and in certain exceptional and extreme cases, owing to the particular nature of the land or the large number of drains, if the county committee consider that there are some very exceptional circumstances which justify a larger grant, they have power to ask for it, but in general the grant will be £7 10s. an acre. We are

also asking the committees to take immediate steps to get hold of local manufacturers' tiles and to try and make arrangements before prices go up.

Sir Ernest Shepperson: Will it include 50 per cent. of the tiling as well as 50 per cent. of the cost of the drainage?

Mr. Hudson: Yes, certainly. To sum up, agriculture at the beginning of the war was undoubtedly in a much worse and more enfeebled state than it was in 1914. The first step towards its recovery and increased production, namely, the ploughing-up campaign of 2,000,000 acres, has successfully been taken, but in the meantime the crisis with which the nation is faced has become immeasurably more serious and will undoubtedly provide us with a large number of new problems. At the same time it also involves considering first things first. The real thing that matters is this winter and 1941. And the test, I suggest to the Committee, that we have to apply to every proposal is, Will it result in an increased crop next year? It is no good talking about what the crop will be in 1942 or 1943, but what will be the crop in 1941? Agriculture is in its essence a long-term proposition, and we shall undoubtedly have to take in the course of the next few months many steps which are uneconomic and which indeed are unwise, from the long-term point of view, but which are forced upon us by the inescapable necessities of the situation with which we are faced. We shall have to give detailed guidance, and detailed directions in many cases to the farmers what they are to produce and what they are not to produce. We shall have to provide the farmers with the necessary means and with the necessary incentive. We shall have to provide them with the necessary labour and machinery. We have in the last few weeks, I hope, cut red tape, and cut out delay repeatedly. We have given the county executive committees in the course of the last few weeks many additional powers, and we are giving them everything naturally for which they ask. We are putting resources at their disposal, and if there is still anything left that we think is necessary, I shall not hesitate to come down and ask this House for the necessary powers. I am certain, taken by and large, we shall get the necessary


response from everyone concerned, whether he be landowner, farmer or farm worker.
Agriculture, in my opinion as a layman who has taken a certain amount of interest in it as an observer, has been recovering during many years from a generally widespread belief that British agriculture had failed and would not do more than provide a very few weeks' supply of food, and that, taking it by and large, it was not worth spending a great deal of trouble on it. But now a real crisis faces us, and agriculture at last has its chance. We have to-day sufficient food, and I hope shall still continue to do food, and I hope will still continue to do so, but we must insure ourselves against our present importation programme being stopped by enemy action, and the only way to do that is by increasing domestic production. Tens of millions of people on the Continent of Europe will face in the next few months the danger of starvation. Many millions may well perish, but British agriculture, with modern methods, modern machinery, modern science and the necessary enthusiasm and drive, can and will play a very large part indeed in saving the people of this island from suffering a similar fate.

5.16 p.m.

Earl Winterton: I am sure that I can, on behalf of the whole Committee on both sides, congratulate my right hon. Friend on a very admirable and most comprehensive statement that was succinct, well planned and, if I may say so, well planed. If I may go further, also on behalf of the Committee, I would like to congratulate my right hon. Friend on the position which he occupies. I hope I shall not be out of order if I commend this Government most thoroughly. It consists, if I may say so, of all the toughs and all the talents. In my opinion there were in the past far too many good little boys in former Governments who never caused trouble to the Chief Whip. I will not say my right hon. Friend comes into that category, for he certainly caused the Chief Whip and others in this House a certain amount of trouble at one time or the other.
I think perhaps I ought to apologise to the many distinguished agriculturists in this Committee for having caught your eye, Mr. Speaker, on this occasion, but I

have had a wide experience of farming both in this country and in one of the Dominions, and I have owned and bred pedigree cattle and sheep. Following on the closing words of my right hon. Friend's speech, I would like to say that in this matter love of land is not enough. British people must be taught to see—and perhaps this crisis will teach them—that misuse of the soil, intended by God and by nature to produce food on an overcrowded island where, nevertheless, millions of acres are not cultivated, is a crime against nature and their own interests. To me, land is something more important than the man who owns it or works it as a farmer or a labourer. British people of all parties and classes have neglected many things at their peril in the past, but none of them have neglected more at their peril than this question of the soil, and I want to deal with one aspect which, in my judgment, is the most serious part of that neglect.
The soil of this country or in any other country is a hard task-master, and in the past there have been far too many inhabitants of the nation who have spent their time trying to get higher dividends or wages, as the case may be, in peacetime. One thing is quite certain, that nobody can work the soil and expect as high a profit or wage from it as from other industries. It was true during the last war and before. I think one should be concerned to-day not so much with high returns from existing farms, although that is immensely important, but with the position of land which is not properly cultivated. We are faced, and have always been faced—and it has not come out sufficiently in agricultural Debates—with the position that while we have many farms in this country as good as and better than many farms in the world, we have a vast amount of land which is scandalously farmed, due to circumstances which as a whole are the result of economic circumstances and not so much to the wrong action of owners and occupiers.

Mr. De la Bère: Due to lack of money.

Earl Winterton: Due to economic circumstances. I have travelled by train to all parts of Europe, to Constantinople, parts of Germany, the borders of Russia, Poland, Italy and other places, and I do not care what place you go through on any such journeys, you will not see any land so neglected as the land between


Dover, Folkestone and London. I am not making any attack upon particular farmers in that part of the country; it is true of other parts of the country. Whatever our political views may be, it is no use denying the fact that agriculture has an immense leeway to make up if it is to achieve what it did many years ago. I think the Minister has had assistance from many organs of the Press, and many outside this House, expressing that point of view, and if I may give an example, I would like to quote an excellent sentence from the "Daily Express," which I think puts forward what should be our object at this moment. It is:
The ploughing of uncultivated land should begin now, and the ploughing of other land should begin the moment this year's harvests or crops are gathered.
I want to say something about this question of land which is at present not being properly used, or being only partially used. I think the use of the term "waste land" is not very exact, because waste land can be divided into two distinct categories, although the line of demarcation is not always easy to draw. For example, there is true waste land, such as the Aldershot sandy heath country, which is not cultivated anywhere in Europe. There is a great deal of similar land to be seen in Germany, and even in Denmark, so there must always be a proportion of true waste land in this country. But there is the second category, an enormous amount of land which has become waste land, which was once ploughed or grazed and which consists of various forms of soil, such as heavy clay, poor sand or chalk. Literally, there are hundreds of thousands of acres of such land which have been gradually going out of cultivation since the basic year of the agricultural depression of 1879.
I want to speak from the point of view of the county which I know best and the western portion of the Weald in East and West Sussex, South Surrey and the Western Southdowns. I can claim an extensive and intensive knowledge, from observation, of that part of the world, which is probably unique. In my constituency and adjoining district I have ridden, hunted, walked and gone on manoeuvres over huge tracts of it, and I can assure the Committee that the average Englishman has not the least idea of what

is the real scandal of the amount of uncultivated land. When I use that word I am not making any charge against any brother landlord; I mean it is a scandal that this House and Committee has allowed it for years to exist. During the 34 years I have been in the House the majority of agricultural Debates have been attended by only a handful of people while all this has been going on. Now it is only because my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and others have roused us to a sense of the situation that we find such an interest in the matter being taken to-day. I feel I owe my right hon. Friend a debt of gratitude for what he has done in that respect.
I would like to go into further detail about this question of land, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give me an answer to some of my points when he comes to reply. First of all, may I give one particular example? On the Western Southdowns between, roughly speaking, what is known as Amberley Gap—which may be familiar to some of my hon. Friends as a well-known beauty landmark—and the boundary of Hampshire are thousands of acres of downs. I remember, 45 years ago, walking with my father, who was a well known agriculturist in West Sussex and was connected with many prominent agricultural movements in this country. As we walked we saw miles of down dotted with gorse bushes and heather. My father, with characteristic emphasis, said, "Bless my soul, when I was a boy and used to come here, every bit of land was close grazed by sheep." If he was alive to-day, he would see, not a few hundred but thousands, of acres of this land covered with nothing but gorse bushes. Let me take another example; in the district around Churt, where my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs lives, conditions are the same save for the land that he and a few other patriotic people have recovered. What makes me more angry than anything else is that much of this land has been bought by speculative builders and allowed to go out of cultivation because the builder does not care whether the land is farmed or not. He has merely bought it as a speculation and let it go to waste.
Then there is land which is covered with thick thorns, brambles, sorrel, moss and weeds where once corn grew, as you can see from the marks of the furrows. This land could grow corn again to-day. It is quite true that to do so you would have to buy back the land, as the phrase is, but in war-time that would be worth while. Some of us have experimented, partly for patriotic reasons, in that sort of work. I personally cleared land last winter which had got into a bad state by using what we call in the South a grub axe and a "slasher." It really is not very skilled work, and it could be done by unskilled labour. I welcome very much my right hon. Friend's announcement about steps which are being taken to do it.
There is another reason for dealing with this matter of derelict land. We have a number of good, small dairy farmers. They are men who run their farms on a family basis, their own families almost exclusively working on them. Many of them have been rightly asked by my right hon. Friend to plough up two or three fields for his current production programme. It has been to some extent a hardship for them. In some cases they have had to grow more than they actually required themselves, being unaccustomed to arable farming. They do not object, being patriotic people, but what they object to, as my own tenants and constituents have said to me, is to seeing next door to them a farm with exactly the same texture of soil which has been allowed to become derelict. I cannot say how glad I was to hear my right hon. Friend's announcement of the steps that are going to be taken to deal with the matter. I hope he will not ignore the case of the towns. Some urban authorities own large areas of land which they have bought, partly to protect themselves against beauty spots being destroyed and partly to protect their waterworks. I do not want to mention the particular town that I have in mind, but there is a large area of land which has been bought by the corporation. Outside the borough area there is land which is being cultivated, and some inside, but there are thousands of acres inside with nothing but thorns and gorse growing, when there is a demand everywhere for allotments. The right hon. Gentleman should be as drastic with that as with any other form

of ownership. I welcome very much the system which he has inaugurated of inspection of farms. I welcome the creation of liaison officers to advise him and also the stiffening of the war agricultural committees—perhaps that is rather an uncomplimentary phrase, but the addition to them of certain experts. Those committees have been described in some quarters as reactionary, but I think they deserve a word of praise. I think all, these things should do the trick and should lead to the utilisation of derelict land.
There is one other point. I have not heard attention called to this matter in any Debates that have taken place in the House, possibly because it is comparatively a local problem and applies only to some parts of England. We have in Sussex—the same applies to Surrey—thousands and thousands of acres of common land which was once closely grazed by the village flocks, sheep, and in some districts goats, and in others used by large flocks of geese. They are not commons which are required for recreational purposes. They are well away from the main roads. They have become intensely overgrown with gorse and other things in recent years, for two main reasons. One is that no one can afford the labour of looking after cattle, and the other is the state of the law, which charges a person with an offence against the highway laws if he allows cattle to be on the highway. My right hon. Friend should consider whether, under the general powers conferred on him, he could not do something to obtain the abrogation of that Act. I suggest that he should erect a notice saying that cattle are turned out on the common and motorists must exercise caution. This is a problem of great importance.
There is another reason why these commons should be cleared. They offer an admirable target for incendiary bombs. It is well known that gorse will burn at any time of the year. It is most inflammable, and bombs dropped on it would not only burn the gorse but would set fire to surrounding harvest fields and woods. My right hon. Friend should see whether something cannot be done about utilising this waste space for grazing. In Sussex, if you were to cut gorse now, you would get some sort of herbage growth. We cannot afford to neglect this potential source of herbage supply.
I hope my right hon. Friend will make representations to the Ministry of Transport about a matter to which I have previously called attention. The Ministry is cutting grass verges at the side of roads. If labour is to be used in cutting grass, the grass should be used for agricultural purposes and made into silage. [Interruption.] The Minister informs me that he has been in communication with his right hon. Friend and it is being done, but we know nothing about it in our part of England. I believe I have been mainly pushing at an open door, but we have to consider the production of food from every acre of land, not only this year but next, and also to some extent on a long-term policy. I hope that the message which my right hon. Friend has sent out to the people of the country through you, Sir, will be taken to heart by everyone, that the fortress which is England must not be betrayed because its people in the immediate past have forgotten the wisdom, the patience and the courage of their ancestors who tended every rood which could give them food. Many will have to suffer from this agricultural policy which will have to be put into operation, but, after all, the burden that they are asked to bear cannot be as great as that which the soldiers, sailors and airmen are bearing. We are dealing with something which is essential. At no time has this country shown greater vigour and virility, both in mind and body, than at present. We have passed away from the deplorable era of defeatism, decadence and depression of the immediate post-war era after the last war. Here is an opportunity for the British people to show at long last, through the Government programme, that it has not forgotten the first duty that man has to learn, and that is that you neglect your soil at your peril.

5.41 p.m.

Mr. Lloyd George (Carnarvon Boroughs): I have taken part in a great many agricultural Debates and have listened to a great many Ministerial statements, some of them very unsatisfactory and most of them disappointing, but I am very glad to be able to congratulate the present Minister of Agriculture on having delivered a speech which shows that he has a read grip on the problem. He has realised what a great many of his predecessors were not able to grasp with

regard to some of the fundamentals of the problem. He has difficulties which are not merely inherent. The inherent difficulties of his task are as great as those which confront any Minister, but, in addition to that, he has, as every Minister of Agriculture has had in the past, the prejudices and the acceptance of agriculture by the whole community as a sort of derelict industry, something beyond redemption, which you have to put up with. You have to make a sort of pretence of doing something when, as a matter of fact, it is an industry which is in the way of other industries. The more you cultivate the soil of the country the fewer manufactures you will be able to sell. It damages your shipping, and, above all, the City of London has never liked it. It is not a very good industry for bankers. The total turnover is too small really to bother about. Especially when you have converted your banks into these gigantic concerns which deal with tens and hundreds of millions, what was the use of bothering with agriculture? Therefore it was no one's interest—no one's child. It was a sort of evacuee amongst the industries of the country.
I have heard many Ministers of Agriculture, and there was a sort of air of inveterate depression surrounding them. They got up expecting an empty House, and they were not disappointed in that expectation. I have never heard a Minister of Agriculture indulge in a peroration. What was there to perorate about—drainage, cattle disease, and matters of that kind which you had almost to apologise for mentioning in the House of Commons? I am very glad that, in spite of the fact that it is a tragedy that has roused us, we have come to a realisation of what the tillage of the soil has meant since the days of Eden, when Adam was turned out because he was a bad farmer, and when the next two farmers cut each other's throats—Cain and Abel. [An HON. MEMBER: "Only one!"] Since then it has been essential to the life of countries, and every great country that has developed itself into an important Empire has always begun with agriculture, and it was only when it left agriculture that it began to decay. It was true of every Empire in the world; it was true of the Persian and Roman Empires, and of that decay that might have been premonitory of the destruction of our Empire, too.
I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman is approaching his task not merely in earnest, but fearlessly. I should have expected that. I am very glad, for instance, that he emphasised at the beginning of his speech the importance of a survey. That is the first essential step in reconditioning the land of this country. Anybody driving round the country could see for himself, if he knew anything about agriculture, that a survey was essential; but most people did not know anything about agriculture, and there were fewer people, generation by generation, taking any interest in agriculture. They thought that buttercups were pretty, that they were beaten only by the yellow ragwort, and that the more weeds you had the mare attractive the landscape. A survey was essential. I have been pressing that on Minister of Agriculture after Minister of Agriculture. I remember having a conversation with Lord Halifax when he was Minister of Agriculture, and urging him to get a survey of the land of the country. The late Sir John Gilmour undertook it, when he was Secretary of State for Scotland, for two or three counties in Scotland, and it was a very valuable piece of work. But I was utterly unable to persuade any Minister of Agriculture to take the step here. I am very glad the right hon. Gentleman is taking, not merely what is called a broad survey, but the only survey that is of the slightest use, and that is a survey field by field to find out whether each field is making its contribution to the life of the nation—and the word "life" has, for the first time, a sinister meaning to the nation. Every field ought to make its contribution in the life-and-death struggle of this great Empire. If it is not done, we may perish; if it is done, I am convinced we shall be saved. I am very glad we are undertaking the task in real earnest.
I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman later on where I think he ought to do a little more, but I know why he has not done it. It is not because he is not convinced of it, but because he is fully alive to the difficulties in the way, not in his own Department, although that could be improved. I was not in the least excited by hearing that his Department is a bigger Department than it was in 1914. It depends entirely upon whether it is filled up with people who have any sympathy with agriculture and any knowledge of agriculture. It is far better to have a

small Department filled with men who are really whole-heartedly on the job than to have a huge, ramshackle Department filled with clerks and civil servants just sent over by the Treasury because there is no better place in which to put them. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman first of all upon undertaking the task of a real survey, a genuine survey, a practical survey, because the possibilities of the land are infinite. Anybody who has been trying to cultivate bad land and has a memory of what the land looked like before, at the beginning, and then looks at it now, with its waving corn, producing food for the people of this country in their dire need, knows what the land of the country can do when the country is fighting its battles. That is the contribution of the soil to the struggle.
I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has also undertaken drainage in what is certainly a less piffling spirit than that which characterised the last Bill. We had a small grant for mole drainage. One might as well have left it to the moles for all the real good that it did. The right hon. Gentleman has taken the more important part of drainage, the only drainage which you can get over every part of the country. Mole drainage is applicable only to particular kinds of soil, whereas the other is applicable to every kind of soil. My hon. Friend who is now Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture put that point in the past; I hope his appointment to office has not corroded his fine bucolic spirit. The only thing I want to say on this matter is that there was in the Minister's speech a very hopeful sentence, when he said that power is to be taken to exceed the £7 10s. when, in the opinion—of the Minister of Agriculture or to whoever the Minister delegates that task—there is any project which in itself is worth more money. I take it this would enable drainage to be done on a bigger scale, not merely where there is drainage field by field, but where the drainage of fields is quite impossible unless some sort of arterial drainage can drain off what the fields pour into the outlets. This would involve the possibility of draining very considerable parts of the country, which are full of fertility, full of food—[An HON. MEMBER: "And wire-worms."] I could show the hon. Member places where there are plenty of wire-worms in land at the present time. They can be got rid of


ultimately. Some of the best land in the country was drained by the monks.
I am looking forward to this Bill, and I should like to say a word or two about it. I have not seen it; the right hon. Gentleman has seen it. Let him not be bullied by the Treasury, or even by the Chief Whip, who, I am sorry, has left the Committee. I should like to give him a word of advice on Bills of this kind. Arising from the old period of Parliamentary obstruction, when parties fought each other and wanted every possible Amendment which was debatable, Bills are drafted in such a way as to compel the Chairman to rule out of order everything that is worth while as an Amendment, as an improvement. On the last Bill on this subject the Chairman had to rule us out of order because the Bill was drafted in such a way that one could not possibly amend it. I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman comes to his Bill, he will not allow the Treasury to make it impossible for the House of Commons to amend the Bill to incur even expenditure which is not contemplated in the Bill itself. For instance, to give a case, in regard to mole drainage, it was out of order to move an Amendment adding the words "tile drainage," because the Money Resolution was so narrowly drafted. Let me give a tip to the right hon. Gentleman. He must circumnavigate these draftsmen who try to make it impossible to improve his Bills. I know he would like to have those powers.
Nobody wants to obstruct a Measure now, because there is no point in doing so. We want to help the Government to get these powers and to get them as quickly as possible, but we want to have a chance to say a word. Each of us has his own experience, and each can make his own contribution in his own way, which is not everybody's way. We would like to make our contribution, but we cannot do so. We have to keep an eye on the Chair the whole time when we are even suggesting Amendments of that kind, unless a Bill is drafted in an intelligent way, and an intelligent way is a comprehensive way, with real latitude. The right hon. Gentleman will find that his Bill, however good it is, will emerge from Committee as one of the greatest agricultural Measures that has ever been introduced into the House if he just takes

that bit of advice from an old Parliamentarian. I urge him to bring forward a Bill which is capable of being amended, however good it is, in the direction in which he wants it to be amended.
I should like to say another word about something that was said by the right hon. Gentleman. He said that what we wanted to do was to lift the class B land up to class A. I think he ought to do more than that, because class A and class B do not cover the whole of the resources of our soil. I was interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winterton) speaking about derelict land. I remember walking over that part of the country with a Danish professor. I told him that this was second-rate or third-rate land, and his reply was that in Denmark they would call it first-class land. We have four classes of land in this country which would all be cultivated in Denmark. I was told that in Denmark they had very little first-class land, and that our second-class land was what they would call their first-class land. Third-class land is barely cultivated in this country, and the fourth-class is left untouched.
We are up against a proposition when we may need all the food that every acre of land can produce. I am not pessimistic, but in war you must face all the possibilities. I do not think the real campaign against our shipping has begun. The nearest approach to it was made yesterday, and it is very gratifying that they did not pull it off. I do not think it was very encouraging for them, but they are not people to be discouraged by one rebuff, and I have no doubt at all that the attack is going to be of a much more formidable character, and that it will be not merely upon the ships at sea, but upon our docks and communications. If our communications are destroyed, impeding transit from one part of our island to another, it will limit the possibility of distributing food. Therefore, we ought to be in such a position that whatever happens they cannot starve us. That is vital. I have always taken the view that a long war is better for us. The short war is the chance of the enemy, and the long war the chance of the tenacious races which live in this island. The greater the difficulties confronting them the tougher they get. I always thought that the long war gave us a better chance, but


it means that every acre of land—firstclass, second-class, third-class, fourthclass—should be made to produce the last blade of grass and the last bit of corn. I therefore say that it is not merely a question of lifting up the B class land but of cultivating all derelict land. We may not obtain very much for the first year from these other classes, although we should have something, and it is amazing to me what has already been obtained this year. I should like to congratulate the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman. I was a critic of his, but not too severe. He has achieved the object he had in mind, and it has been a real success. The results are extraordinarily good so far as the appearance of the crops is concerned.
The Minister ought to go beyond the mere limit, I will not say imposed upon himself, but which looks for the moment as if it is. I hope he will not be satisfied with lifting B to A, but that he will carry it further. In order to do that he has indicated what the conditions are—labour and a secure market. The Government are putting a good deal upon the farmer, but he is not always a good business man although he may be a good farmer. He is not always a good business man in disposing of his produce. Take that off his shoulders as much as you possibly can—

'the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Boothby): We are.

Mr. Lloyd George: I am glad the Parliamentary Secretary understands that need. It will help the farmer enormously if the worry of disposing of his produce is taken off his shoulders. See to it that he can dispose of his produce, especially now that we are getting into a more varied diet. I do not agree in the least that it is unpalatable. It is infinitely more palatable, and it is the diet upon which I was brought up and which has lasted me for 77 years. It was a very varied diet with vegetables and barley. No one seems to eat barley in these days. Barley bread with a mixture of wheat is first-class stuff. A diet of vegetables of every kind with not too much meat is quite sufficient. The Government are not making the most of milk; they are just putting it into tins, but what they can make out of it is something which has not been taught. There is micws mali,

which was first-class—I do not suppose the right hon. Gentleman has ever heard of that dish. It is a contrast—something which is hot, and something which is cold—and it appeals to the palate. The peasant discovered that. Let the right hon. Gentleman name anything more attractive or sustaining than a hot potato in cold butter milk. All these things can be made very palatable. Vegetable soups are a meal in themselves, and the Russians, who are a fine, powerful race, have lived on them.
The Government are now coming under the instruction of men who have made a study of the problem of nourishing diets, and it is all to the good that the result of their investigation has been to counsel us to return to simple fare. But it involves more labour, and labour is one of the essential parts of the problem. Most of the work could be done by women. In Denmark, for instance, they keep their young women in the rural areas by giving them something to do, such as preparing palatable dishes for the markets. We too should take it in hand. It would do more for the health of the country than anything the Minister of Health could offer. Nothing would do more to restore the health of the country than to put the diet of the peasant on the tables of Mayfair, and of the workers, who at the present moment are spending their money upon things which, although they appear to be attractive and palatable, are not good for their health. Let us get something of value out of this terrible evil while we are endeavouring to restore the land of the country and regenerate our rural life.

Mr. MacLaren: What about the landowners?

Mr. Lloyd George: We can deal with that. The landowner has gone down with the decadence of rural life, and he has almost disappeared in our part of the country. I do not know whether that is the case in England; but one after another the old country houses and landed estates have disappeared. It has been a general decadence.

Mr. Hudson: To the great detriment of agriculture.

Mr. Lloyd George: At any rate, to the extent that there is now no leadership. Here we have a doctrine of a new diet, and a diet which is cheaper and far more


palatable and one to stick to in health and in sickness. It gives you more vigour and more vitality, and it gets rid of the pessimism which bad feeding puts into your veins. Vegetables, for instance, need far more labour than a field of corn. You cannot grow them with a tractor; you have to cultivate the soil. I hope, therefore, that the labour will be obtained. The Women's Land Army is not the success it was in the last war. I do not know why. Is it because we are not getting the necessary recruits or because there have been no positions for them on the land? For vegetables women would be quite as quick as men, and in some parts of that work they would be better.
Credit is the other thing. The part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech which dealt with it was the most disappointing. I can well understand his difficulties, because the moment he talks about credit he gets up against the banks and the Treasury. When Mr. Birrell was Secretary for Ireland and we could not give Home Rule to Ireland, he had all sorts of proposals and sops for Irish agriculture. He came before the Cabinet and before me as Chancellor of the Exchequer, and said, "I have a scheme. The Irish Members will be quite happy with postponed Home Rule if I can get this scheme through, but, mind you, it has got to swim in butter." My advice to the right hon. Gentleman is that he should see that these schemes swim in butter. I have had communications with farmers and with men who have been in contact with many more farmers than I have, and they say that the credit system at the present moment as devised by the Ministry of Agriculture is not helping them at all.
One contrast between 1914 and to-day was indicated by the right hon. Gentleman. Farmers are not as well off as they were then. Oddly enough, if you were to appraise their stock and implements, you would say that they had more capital, but it is not liquid capital. A farmer has a tractor which costs more than the price of four horses, and he may have two tractors. He has to renew them much oftener than he did his horses. His nominal capital may, therefore, be bigger than it was, but the liquid capital on which he can lay his hands to buy fertilisers and seed is not there. Another thing

that I was told by somebody with agricultural experience was that you would be surprised at the type of farmer who find himself unable to lay his hands on money—the respectable farmer, the man who has been regarded as quite well off, and probably is if he were able to sell the whole of his stock. He has, however, no liquid cash on which he can lay his hands. He cannot carry out a programme of this kind without having ready money. It is no use saying, "Go to the bank." The banks have ceased to lend money for a long time, and the farmer has been financed practically by the dealer, the auctioneer and the corn merchant. The banker does not think his business is profitable enough; it is of small account.
The farmer must get money from the Treasury, but not at 5 per cent.; it must be something very much lower than that because he is doing work for the nation. It is not the farmers who are asking you whether they can do these things. You are saying to them, "We want you to do this, and we will tell you more—we are going to compel you to do it." If that is the case, you must find them the wherewithal to carry out your orders. It is no use sending a soldier into battle without providing him with the necessary equipment. That is one of the troubles from which we have been suffering recently in the other sphere. You are sending the farmer into action without providing him with the necessary equipment to carry out his task. He is half equipped. The money ought to be given somehow or other. The right hon. Gentleman should consider whether it should be given through the agricultural committee or some other committee, but there ought to be an independent committee which would examine every case. I have seen the instructions that have been given to the farmers with regard to credit. They have to exhaust all other means; they must try their banks, they must try the usual sources of borrowing money, and then, if you are satisfied that all these sources have failed, you begin to consider their claims for credit. That is not good enough. They ought to be encouraged so long as the proposition is one which will end in the increased production of food.
The right hon. Gentleman made one wise observation, among many others, when he said that in carrying out our


programme we must not look to economic profits. The supreme purpose and aim is the production of food to prevent our people from being demoralised, beaten and famished into surrender. What is the use of quibbling about an extra ½ per cent. or 1 per cent. and sending a man trotting round, a man who dislikes the idea of borrowing, and going from one person to another and saying, "Can you lend me £10 to buy seed, £15 to buy fertilisers? I want a few implements, and I really cannot spare the cash for them. Will you lend it to me?" That is a humiliation to people whom you are asking to discharge a great duty to the State. Therefore, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will pluck up the courage which I know he possesses, rouse himself to face all the lions, tigers and jackals of finance, and say to them, "Here, I am out to save the country from disaster. I want your help."

6.25 p.m.

Mr. Price: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has put some heart into those of us who feared that the war-time rationing that we are likely to get will be intolerable. He has given us the names of certain dairy products in his native country of which I have not heard before. I would like to remind him that even in the land of the Sassenach we have some products of that kind. There is, for instance, in my county the famous double Gloucester cheese, which is second to none of its kind as a first-class dairy product. Many years ago I spent many months in the Middle East and Central Asia and lived for a good part of that time on the sour milk called yoghourt made by the Tartars and Russians. It is first-class stuff and I did not suffer from it. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is right in suggesting that we can in the situation which we are likely to face find much good in adversity. I would like to congratulate the Minister on his statement and on his taking up his important office. It has often been the grave of reputations. I remember congratulating the last Minister of Agriculture, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Petersfield (Sir R. Dorman-Smith) when he made his first speech from that Box. I expressed the hope then that the tide would turn and that the office he had assumed would not

be the grave of his reputation. I had all the more pleasure in doing so because he is, like me, an old Harrovian. I fancy that the new Minister is an old Etonian, but, in spite of that fact, I wish him luck and every success in his office. His speech was most interesting and it will be, I think, a landmark in our agricultural policy.
Those who are not directly connected with the land and agriculture do not often realise that land is not like a factory. It cannot suddenly turn out products, but it has to wait for the processes of nature. Therefore, it is difficult in this hour of crisis for the land suddenly to respond as quickly as we would like to the needs of the nation. Years of neglect of this industry cannot be repaired in two, three or even more years. It seems that war and the threat of blockade alone will arouse this democracy to think of its land and its agricultural industry. I have on one or two occasions in the House referred to that great classical writer on agriculture, Virgil. In his great Georgics he had a passage in which he referred to the devastating wars which at that time had swept over the then known world, and he said in one passage:
There are so many wars throughout the world to-day, so many are the phases of evil, that the plough meets not its due honour.
I hope that in spite of this devastating war our democracy will be able to give to the plough its due honour. There are two immediate practical steps which we must take in the near future. We must evolve a price policy which shall aim at encouraging the production of those foods which are most needed in war time and secondly, we must aim at a long-term policy for the land which will not only give us our war-time food, but will conserve the fertility of our land, without which we cannot fight a long war. If we are to get these policies carried out the first and foremost step to be taken is to secure to the agricultural labourer decent conditions such as befit his position as a citizen in our democracy. That problem seems to have been solved for the moment in that we have at last taken a tremendous step towards bridging that gap between the economic status of the agricultural worker and the urban worker which up to now has been the greatest difficulty confronting us. There are still points which will have to be reconsidered, however, par-


ticularly in view of the fact that the hours of agricultural labourers are still not subject to the Central Wages Board, and it is possible for some of the improvement which has been conferred upon agricultural labourers to be filched from them by the activities of county wages boards in unduly extending hours.
In general, I may say that we approve most heartily of the steps taken by the Minister. But as he rightly said in his speech, one cannot expect the farming industry to pay these wages unless they are assured of prices for their produce which will enable them to do so, and I think it will be necessary to readjust the wholesale prices of farm products from time to time. In the mixed farming country of the South-West and the Midlands of England, which I know fairly well, the wage increases come to quite considerable sums, being 21 per cent. over the old wage rates when all factors are taken into consideration. Even so, labour charges will still be not more than 25 per cent. of the costs of production on that type of farm. Against that there have been quite considerable rises in the wholesale prices for farm produce since the outbreak of the war. In the last five months milk prices have risen by from 26 per cent. to 30 per cent., fat cattle prices by 26 per cent., and sheep prices—taking an average between ewes and teggs—by 20 per cent., and in sheep raising labour is only 15 per cent. of the total cost of production.
If that were all, the position would not be at all difficult, and I think fanners could very well bear the present wage increases; but it is not the whole story. There are other and very much larger increases in production costs. The prices of implements and seeds, particularly seeds, have risen enormously, and among feeding stuffs compound dairy cake has risen by 50 per cent. since the outbreak of the war. This alone justifies an increase in the price certainly, of milk, and I think of other forms of produce. Here I would utter a word of warning to the Minister. I hope that he will not listen to those who are inclined to argue that because feeding stuffs have risen by so much that the prices for milk and other products of the farm must go up in proportion. It is necessary for him to induce the farmer to economise in feeding

stuffs, particularly in those which are imported from abroad.
I will come back to that point in a few minutes, and meanwhile I should like to say that in my opinion the Minister must base his price policy mainly upon the need of the country to produce from the farm certain foods which are necessary to keep the country in health in war time. In his speech he referred to the scientists whose advice he has sought to work out a war-time ration. I think he is on the right lines. I conceive it possible that we could live for a very long time on a diet mainly, say 75 per cent., home produced, comprising milk, potatoes, vegetables and oatmeal, with the addition, perhaps, of certain things which we should import in smaller quantities which would give us our bread and our fats. We talk about bringing Germany down by our food blockade. It seems to me that we are up against a tough proposition, because the Germans are used to this kind of war-time rationing. They have always lived largely on rye, oatmeal and dairy produce and are used to it. While I think we can bring them down by other means—a shortage of oil and a shortage of fats—before we can do that we shall ourselves have to adopt to some extent the kind of diet on which they have been living for many years, the Spartan diet to which they have been used for so long. I believe that the scientists will be able to tell us that with such a home-produced diet, and the minimum of imported foods—various breads and fats and perhaps a little sugar—we can get 2,000 calories per head per day, which the dieticians say is necessary to keep the human frame in decent working order, and which provide vitamins A, B and C, without which we cannot have healthy people.
Therefore, when the Minister revises his new scale of prices—I understand that the present scale is a kind of interim scale—which will have to wait upon the further advice from the scientists when they put forward their proposals, he should encourage the production on the farm of the foods for war-time rationing to which I have referred. He will have to see that the prices of milk and potatoes are really attractive to the farmer, and, conversely, that livestock prices are not perhaps so attractive, relatively, because at a time


like this we want to conserve our livestock on the hoof rather than allow them to go to the slaughter-house. I have been a little disturbed at the new scale of prices which has been introduced. There should have been a drop in the prices for lamb at the beginning of this month, but under the new scale that drop does not take place, the idea being that a decrease would encourage farmers to hold over their sheep for several months, if possible right over the winter. It seems to me, however, that now that the threatened drop has been removed there will be a tendency to market more than is desirable at the moment, whereas we ought to conserve our flocks as much as possible.
I know that the position is difficult, that there are many farmers who have not much capital and wish to realise their stock, and it would be a hardship to them to hold them over for many months, but I think it would be better if the Minister would inspire an effort to induce farmers to hold their stock over. A committee presided over by Lord Moyne is going into the whole question of livestock prices, and I hope it will consider what can be done in this respect, possibly by offering a premium to those who will hold over their stock for some months, or possibly by rationing the sales on a quota basis in the markets of the country, so that we do not get large numbers being offered at certain times of the year. I should like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary what is the idea of this Moyne Committee, and whether it will be working along the lines which I have suggested.
Another way in which the Minister can encourage certain types of food production and discourage others is by the rationing of our feeding-stuffs, not perhaps direct rationing, which may be difficult to carry into effect, but in the indirect way in which it is done at present. I am glad that up to now it has been the policy of the Ministry to give the first chance with feeding-stuffs to the dairy herds, because it is clear from the scientific investigations which have taken place that dairy herds convert at a more economic rate, pound for pound, than other herds. For instance 1 lb. of dairy produce can be produced from, roughly, 5 lb. of feeding-stuffs. On the other hand, the pig is a pretty good converter of feeding-stuffs, but to produce 1 lb. of pig meat you want 8 lb. of feeding-stuffs. In the case of poultry feeding, the process is more

wasteful still, because 1 lb. of poultry meat requires 15 lb. of poultry food. Worst of all, I am afraid, are the beef animals, 1 lb. of which requires 20 lb. of feeding-stuffs. Those proportions were all right in peace-time, when they did not matter, but in these iron-ration days of war-time you have to consider the most economical use of feeding-stuffs. For that reason the dairy herds must have first place. I am glad that the Ministry are working along those lines.
At the same time, one cannot help feeling that something should be done to prevent disaster to our poultry industry. I would not mind so very much if the pig industry decreased. It is all right in peace-time, but in war time a pig does not produce quite all you want. The poultry industry does, however, produce an article which contains important vitamins necessary for our general health. A very important and high feeding quality is to be found in the egg. It may be true that we must considerably reduce our flocks of poultry and our output of eggs, but we must keep a certain minimum. One reason for reducing poultry flocks is, as I have just said, that poultry are not economical converters, but if we can import feeding-stuffs at all, as I hope will still be possible, we should allocate a certain proportion to the specialised poultry flocks, to prevent them going out altogether. It used to be argued by the Treasury that it was much more economical to import eggs from Denmark by the short haul than to import feeding-stuffs from America on the long haul. That was probably true then, but the conditions that existed at the beginning of the war are now gone. If it is still possible to import, on a different scale, perhaps, some feeding-stuffs from America and other continents, it would be desirable to allocate a certain proportion of it to poultry, despite the fact that they are uneconomical converters, just because poultry produce a very highly important and valuable foodstuff.
We must not, on the other hand, fall into the error of thinking that the poultry industry can be kept going only by imported foodstuffs. We must recast our whole idea of the poultry industry. There must be a more extensive method of poultry keeping on free range. In my opinion also it is necessary to organise a much more systematic method of


collecting from the towns offals which can be valuable to the pig industry, and, particularly, to the poultry industry. I know towns in the West of England where nothing has been done at all for the proper conversion of important offals which could be used for those industries.
Let me now sum up some of my suggestions so far. The first was price policy in regard to the encouragement of those articles of food which we need in wartime. The second is a long-term cropping policy which will give us our war-time food and conserve the fertility of our soil. The present situation in this latter respect is very bad. The noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) has given a very interesting account of what has happened in his county, land gradually becoming derelict in large tracts of Sussex. I can assure the noble Lord that that is so in other counties. In my own county of Gloucestershire, Victorian landlords and well-to-do people of that generation drained large areas, turning parts of the Severn Valley from marshes only slightly productive into land where you could raise one bullock to the acre, but there has been steady deterioration there for many years past. My grandfather, who sat for many years in this House, took an interest in the reclamation of land. He drained many acres in the Severn Valley. I have his drainage maps to this day. I have now handed them over to the Gloucestershire County Council drainage authority, because they are now going to bring back that soil into its original fertility, which the Victorian landlords and the men of that age brought about. The people now on the land cannot afford to do those things. It is not their fault; it is the fault of the age. It is necessary that the public authorities shall now do the thing which those men, great in their day, carried out.
We see throughout the world a general deterioration of land. In the American Continent there are soil erosion and dust bowls. Here, we have sour land, due to years of agricultural depression, filling of ditches and a general growing of rushes and ragwort. Suddenly, we have to try to increase food production. Professor Stapleton, who has done more work than any other man in trying to rouse the country to the need for improvement in our pastures, warned us some time ago that

we must regenerate our grassland on a long-term policy and not in one or two years. We have to think it out for many years in advance. He advocated a ploughing-up campaign and a combination of temporary grass, or temporary lays, permanent lays and arable, in proportion of roughly one third. To my mind, that is the way in which the war agricultural committees of the counties must try to induce farmers to act. There must be elasticity. I was very glad to note that the Minister seemed to envisage that in his speech. He said there were no longer to be fixed percentages for ploughing up. I know of farms where 50 per cent. should be ploughed up, because many of the pastures there cannot be improved. On the other hand, I know of places where it would be of a great mistake to plough up a large proportion because the pastures are producing well, as a result of proper treatment some time ago. If you were to plough up large proportions, you would probably get actually a temporary fall in production. All these things have to be thought out farm by farm and field by field. I was very much cheered by what the Minister said in his speech, because he seemed to envisage greater elasticity in the future.
Every farmer must think out the percentage which he can plough up, and can keep as pasture. In this connection, I would refer to Professor Stapleton's new book, "Grass; An Essential Part of Food Production." In that book he advocates long-term rotations and the planning out of the crops on each individual farm. The suggestion is that the ploughing-up subsidy should be continued, irrespective of whether there is war or no war. I suggest there should be a long-term policy going over at least 10 years, and the granting of the subsidy should be dependent upon the production by each farmer of a cropping plan for his farm. It should not be given indiscriminately, but only if each farmer produces a plan over a long term of years for increasing the production of his farm and for a cropping policy.
Closely connected with what I have just said is the policy of trying to make each farm self-sufficient in feeding-stuffs. I believe it is possible. The other day I saw some very interesting statistics from Holland and Denmark, relating to the period of the last war. Denmark has been


largely dependent on imported feeding-stuffs for its livestock. Holland, on the other hand, has produced its own feeding-stuffs to a very large extent. Holland has developed the method of making silage from various forms of catch crops, one of those methods about which we are only just beginning to know in this country. The silage method uses the bacteria, which are found all round us, to do the work of producing protein, carbo-hydrates and high feeding values out of common grass and vegetation of many kinds. I maintain that it is possible largely to do away with the importation of cake if we go about the matter in the proper way.
The method in Holland was to put one-third of the land under permanent grass, one-third under arable cultivation, and one-third under catch crops for silage. That method has been going on for years, and the result was that, between 1916 and 1919, the last years of the last war, the milk yield in Holland per cow per annum dropped only from 10,000 gallons to 9,000. In Denmark, where a system of importing feeding-stuffs from all over the world was the order of the day, the yield per cow dropped from 8,000 gallons to 5,000. I have had some experience of silage production. Last winter, I kept 15 to 20 dairy cows, fed on hay, ensilage and home-grown beans; only the best milkers got any cake. During that time, a very bitter winter, the yield per cow did not drop at all. I intend to continue along this line, and I am hoping that by next winter I shall have so much ensilage that it will be possible to keep my dairy cows without any cake at all. I would like to conclude by drawing the attention of the Committee to that quotation of Virgil once more. I believe that we can only achieve this aim by clear thinking and clear acting both by the Minister and the farmers on the land. We must grow the nation's war-time rations; we must make our herds more self-supporting, and we must farm and not ranch and process. Farming at last is coming into its own. I believe the Minister is fully aware of the problem, judging by the speech which he has made. I wish him God speed in his work and I believe the farmer and the farm worker will do their duty by the nation.

7.1 p.m.

Mr. Pickthorn: It has been almost a rigid convention to leave these Debates to the experts, and

I am afraid that I cannot compete with the hon. Gentleman who remembered the Georgics, nor with his predecessor who has lived the Georgics, nor with the Noble Earl who spoke before him and who has followed the plough across a whole rape of Sussex and over several Continents. Nevertheless, I embolden myself to intervene by the recollections that I represent in this Committee a larger conglomeration of land-owning experience than, I should think, any other five Members, and also that I represent the place from which, I may without impudence say, some of the best agricultural opinion comes. I think that the Minister would bear me out in thinking that that is not an excessive boast.
I wish to make one or two small and disconnected points to begin with, and then to make a short connected argument; at least, I hope it will be short and connected. The disconnected points are these. First of all, a point in itself, very small. I am told that there will be a shortage of beet seed which will be really serious, and that recent misfortunes on the Continent will make it more serious. I am told on the best expert opinion by one of the best scientific farmers in the world, who has himself experimented for years on end in what I am going to refer to, that the sulphuric acid treatment of beet seed really does double the productivity, or rather halves the amount of seed that is needed. I understand that a good deal of exploration is needed if that knowledge is to be exploited. I am told that until recently at least—I am not sure if it is still true—we were still exporting nitrogenous fertilisers. I see that the Minister is taking notes, and I shall be glad if he will be good enough to inquire whether that is still the case.
The third of my disconnected points concerns barley. I do not think that the subject of farm prices is one of the things which I fully understand, but one point in the farm prices recently published which left me with some doubts is that barley prices have been left loose, and, from the little that I do know about East Suffolk at any rate, I think there is a very serious risk if barley prices are left loose that farmers will plant considerably more barley than would be planted if all that was desired was the maximum nutritive result, which I suppose from the public point of view is all that should be desired. In every given year there are


one or two farmers in a certain area who have obtained a very lucky price for barley, and the word goes round, "So-and-so made a small fortune out of 15 acres of barley." As long as barley prices are loose there is a serious risk that far more fields in East Suffolk and other parts too—East Yorkshire, for instance—will be under barley than should be.

Mr. Loftus: Did not the Minister say that the actual crops to be sown are to be strictly controlled?

Mr. Pickthorn: With submission, I think that is not what the Minister said. That brings me to my more general point. I do not believe that we can any longer rely upon the price nexus, which works well enough in peace time on the whole, when we can fall back on importation, and when all the farmers do not make the same mistake in the same year; nor do I think we can any longer rely upon exhortations, to make sure that the farmers will plan for the 1941 harvest in the way in which we for the public interest desire that they should plan. The Minister's predecessor asked for 50,000 more acres of beet. I have not looked up the figures, but I think I am right in saying that so far from getting 50,000 more acres, he has fewer acres of beet than he had in the year before. What I wish to plead with the Minister for is what my hon. Friend below the Gangway suggested he had said, but what I, listening as carefully as I could, thought he did not quite say. There should be a centralised and authoritative statement of what crops we must increase, and by what amounts, over the last year, and what we can afford to lose.
We all have to treat science with a certain amount of reserve. Scientists 25 years ago had not heard of vitamins, and it may be that 25 years hence they may have heard of something else which ought to be in our diet and which at the moment is not. Yet, allowing for such unpredictabilities, it is no doubt true that there is now enough knowledge in the country, in the Ministry of Food and its committees—the committee presided over by Sir William Bragg, and others—for us to decide upon the optimum diet for an iron-ration basis; although, in passing, I should be a little doubtful whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for

Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was quite right when he suggested that for our tough-jawed, iron-teeth, tenacious people, if you could only put their noses down to it, they would prefer flummery to beef. That suggestion may possibly be a little dubious, but I do not think there is any doubt but that there is enough knowledge in the Ministry of Food to do that part of the business and to know what we have to lose in order to make room for what we must gain. In the main, what we have to lose is grass and also certain vegetables. I am told that celery for instance and broccoli, once of such political importance, have no nutritive value at all, and things of that sort no doubt have to go. The Minister spoke to us of farmers being asked drastically to alter their products. What I wish to suggest to him is, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon suggested, that he should take into his hands all of that courage which we know him to possess and that he should face the fact that asking the farmers is not at this moment any longer enough. The Ministry of Agriculture has already on its files and in its drawers, with the Ministry of Food, enough material for it to be able to say how many extra acres ought to be devoted, X for instance to potatoes, Y extra acres to beans, and Z extra acres to oats, and so on. There is enough information there already for that to be done. There is now enough information there also for the Minister to be able to distribute his requirements as amongst the counties, to be able to tell each county what extra acres of particular crops he requires. Beyond that, I think that there is—or in a very few days there will be, when this farm survey, which we are told approaches completion, has been finished—enough information available for the county committees to say which farms are to produce the extra acres of each of these crops.
I believe, in spite of my general prejudice against Socialistic and bureaucratic control that in war we need the maximum expenditure from our permanent resources, and that the thing can be done in that way. But that is not quite being done yet. If I understood the Minister aright, he suggested that he had the power up his sleeve, rather as a last resort, if the farmers were being recalcitrant. My plea to him is that he should bring it down his sleeve. At the moment all the


farmer knows is that we want less grass and many fewer pigs and poultry and more wheat, and with much less certainty and less quantitatively, that we want more beans, oats, potatoes and roots. In particular, the farmer does not know how much more of these things it is in the national interest we should try to produce. The one product that I have not mentioned, of course, is milk, but these things all mean milk in another sense—it is from beans, oats, vegetables and so on that we shall be able to produce milk.

Mrs. Tate: Does the hon. Member—

Mr. Pickthorn: I am very sorry, but I have sat here all day, and the hon. Lady can now listen to me or, if she wishes to avoid that, leave the Chamber. I suggest that the individual farmer has not yet been given these directions, and it may be in the public interest that he should be given such directions. I wish to make one specific suggestion about the basis of calculation for what are regarded as the absolute necessities—and I suppose potatoes would come first in the order of priority. The basis should not be the average yield of the last five years or ten years; it should be the worst year of the last ten years. I know it has been said that if you take that basis you may land yourself with 500,000 or more tons of potatoes beyond what you need, and thus with a loss of £1,000,000 or £2,000,000, but I suggest that that does not really matter in the least at this moment. The Minister spoke of some farmers being told what to grow in what fields; but he watered that down, if I understood him aright, by saying that such powers would be exercised only in extreme cases, or when it was absolutely necessary. I suggest that he should reconsider whether that is enough, and whether arrangements ought not to be made to give detailed instructions, not to every farmer about every field, but in a general sort of way to farmers who might otherwise not rightly plant their fields. I believe that there would be less resentment about detailed instructions if it was known that they were issued in a general way than there would be if it were felt that they were to be used as a sort of stick on farmers or in districts where things had threatened to go wrong.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. De la Bère: I want to start with a very short quotation from the report of the Macmillan Committee on Finance and Industry in 1929:
It is not unnatural to think of the deposits of a bank as being created by the public through the deposits of cash representing either savings or amounts which are not, for the time being, required to meet expenditure; but the bulk of the deposits arise out of the action of the banks themselves; for by granting loans, allowing money to be drawn on an overdraft, or purchasing securities, a bank creates a credit in its books which is the equivalent of a deposit … the banks can carry on the process of lending until such time as the credits created or investments purchased represent nine times the amount of the original deposit in cash.
I have quoted that passage because I have called upon the Minister of Agriculture to request the banks to reduce the rate of 5 per cent. which they are charging on overdrafts to the agriculturists of this country. There is, I believe, no sound reason why the banks do not make that reduction to-day. I know the arguments which the banks use against it. They say that if the reduction is allowed, the Government will have to take over the whole, or, at any rate, part, of the sums outstanding which have been borrowed by the agricultural community. It is never easy to get any figures regarding borrowing by the agricultural community from the banks, but on 2nd July, 1940, the Chancellor of the Exchequer told me that the amount outstanding at the middle of February was £53,000,000. I know—and this may be verified—that for the last five years there has been a sum of approximately £50,000,000 outstanding from the agricultural community. If we reckon 5 per cent. on £50,000,000, we get the amount which is paid to the banks, as a tribute, by a great many agriculturists. That calculation shows that the banks are drawing £2,500,000 a year, or in the neighbourhood of £250,000 a month, from the agricultural communities on money which has never cost the banks anything at all. It is a most astonishing thing. Of course, the banks have to pay for administration, through their branches, and I am aware that that administration is very efficient, but the banks are making, in spite of assurances to the contrary, £2,500,000 annually out of the agricultural community—and the agricultural community cannot afford it.
I ask hon. Members not to misunderstand me. I am not trying to run down the banks. Our banks have a reputation second to none throughout the world, and they have earned that reputation. I do not want anyone to associate what I am saying to-day with any movements either from the Right or from the Left. We want no dictatorships from the Right or from the Left. We want none of that nonsense. But we want administrative reform in this sphere, based on common sense. If that were obtained, the first thing would be that the banks would reduce this 5 per cent. to a figure of not more than 1 per cent. above the existing Bank Rate. I have many times asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Agriculture, and, indeed almost every Minister who can be called in any way appropriate, that that should be done. I do not know whether I am in order in reading an extract from a letter on this subject received by me to-day from the Minister of Agriculture. I will not read the whole letter, but only this extract, which is very applicable:
My own experience in the last month or two has been that, except in comparatively few instances, farmers are not in difficulties about supply of credit or troubled by the present bank overdraft rate of about 5 per cent. Until I receive some evidence to the contrary, I do not propose to take any special action.
Fortunately he has already received some very strong evidence to the contrary which I have forwarded to him to-day. I hope that, if any agriculturists read the OFFICIAL REPORT, they will also forward to him direct evidence to show that there is a very real demand for money at a cheap rate in order that we may grow food and save this country from starvation in time of war. It is really too bad of the Minister to write that sort of thing, which he cannot possibly justify. He must know, in his heart of hearts, that this money is required and that there is a very real demand for it. I will not labour that point, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take what I am saying very seriously into account. I think he is engaged somewhere else at the moment, but I hope, notwithstanding the fact that he is not face to face with me at the moment, that he will take some notice of what I am saying. It is a very important subject and not one to be treated lightly.
Some sections of the Press will probably not publish one word of what I am

saying. They are somewhat wedded to our old procedure and our old ideas, but at one time the "Daily Express" conducted a campaign to get the banks to reduce the interest charges on overdrafts to agriculturists to a figure below 5 per cent., and I hope that at least the "Daily Express" will have the courage to continue that campaign notwithstanding the lack of courage which has been displayed by other sections of the Press. I will not detain the Committee, because long speeches are wearisome and should be out of order in war time, but as long as I have the honour to be a Member of this House I shall fight to get the rate of interest charged to agriculturists reduced by the banks below 5 per cent. I believe that my fight will be successful, before the end of 1940.

7.23 p.m.

Mr. T. Smith: I do not intend to follow the hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. De la Bère) into the realms of finance except to say that there is plenty of evidence in certain parts of the country that farmers are suffering from lack of capital, and that if they could get capital at a cheaper rate, possibly they would develop their farms a little more than is being done at the present time.
We have listened this afternoon to a speech from the Minister which was not only interesting but which suggested changes of policy likely to make for a more prosperous agriculture. We are all agreed that in these days particularly we need 100 per cent. production from our land. I am also very pleased indeed to know that the Minister thinks that the new agricultural prices will do something to satisfy the farmer. For years, as a layman who has taken a great interest in agricultural Debates, I have contended that the farmer was entitled to a fair price for his products at the point of production. It should be a figure sufficient to pay him for all that he has put into the land, and give a decent return for the capital and enough to pay a reasonable wage to those who work on the land. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I think that the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer), who says, "Hear, hear," will agree with me that years ago, each of us in turn, said that the farmer had the right to an economic price and the farm worker to a fair wage and decent conditions.

Mr. MacLaren: And the landlord to his rent.

Mr. Smith: I am not concerned at the moment with the land problem.

Mr. MacLaren: My hon. Friend is missing out a question that is very important in the division of the product.

Mr. Smith: As I have said, I am not at the moment concerned with that problem.

Mr. MacLaren: My hon. Friend is making a division of the product into wages and return to capital. Is he not willing to put aside the other part of the distribution of the product, namely, rent?

Mr. Smith: I am prepared, on the appropriate occasion, to discuss land values, but this afternoon we are discussing agriculture. For some considerable time there has been in this House and in the country a feeling that the farm-worker was not being paid sufficient in wages, and I was very pleased indeed when, two or three months ago, the Minister brought in a Bill fixing a national minimum wage. Although we think that a minimum wage of 48s. in these days is not very high for the work these men do, it certainly is an improvement, in some districts, upon what the farm-workers were already receiving. We have first to see that the men who work on the land get the minimum of 48s. a week. Some years ago, we set up a system of inspection which enabled inspectors to go round and interview farmers and inspect their books and to see that the farm-workers were being paid properly. I was in an agricultural district a fortnight ago addressing meetings of men who were 100 per cent. in favour of winning the war, and farm-workers told me that they knew of scores of cases in the locality where the minimum rates were not being paid. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary when he replies to say whether these inspectors are still being employed and whether the Department is taking steps to see that the 48s. minimum wage is being paid. I regret that the minimum wage of 48s. is not linked up with the question of hours.
We put Questions in this House this week as a result of which we extracted from the Department that while 75 per cent. of the agricultural wages committees had played the game in the matter of

hours, there were 10 agricultural districts in the country where the hours of work had been increased. I believe that one or two districts reduced them. One county, in particular, which is supposed to be a county of hard-headed men, namely, Durham, had the audacity to increase the hours of farm-workers from 50 to 60 per week. I am more than pleased that the Minister is taking up that matter with the Durham committee. That is contrary to the spirit of the Act, and I do not believe there is a Member in this Committee who would agree with the Durham committee in increasing the hours from 50 to 60, and I sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to get the hours reduced. I had hoped, as I say, that the minimum wage would he linked up with the hours that were in operation when the national minimum wage came into being.

Mr. Hudson: I do not agree.

Mr. Smith: There is no other industry in this country, and I especially mention the heavy or highly organised industries, where, if you fixed a national minimum wage and made a big increase in the hours of the workers, you would not have a strike. If you had fixed a national minimum wage in the mining industry and 10 districts in the country had increased the hours, you would probably have had 10 strikes or disputes. If we are to have a prosperous agriculture let us remember that there are skilled men in agriculture who, up to now, have not had a square deal compared with the industrial workers. I hope that we shall pay more attention to this matter and give these fellows a feeling that they are part of the nation.

Sir Joseph Lamb: Would the hon. Member object to the increased hours in the districts to which he refers if the pay was adequate in accordance with the minimum wage? In almost all agricultural areas men are working overtime for a certain number of hours per week as a general thing, which means that it is not really overtime. The hours are general.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Member need not be in any doubt as to what I mean. I mean that when we fixed a national minimum wage, we ought to have had some basic figure for hours in those areas. We ought, at least, to have laid it down that


we would give the agricultural worker a 48-hour week. We ought to have said that the hours in operation in the districts when the national minimum wage came into being should be the weekly hours to be worked for that minimum. Just as workers in other industries get extra pay for overtime so are farm workers entitled to extra pay for overtime. In some localities not far from the constituency which the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) represents, the agricultural wages committees, in fixing overtime rates, suggested that they should be very slightly more than the hourly rate paid for ordinary time during the week—

Sir J. Lamb: I was not talking about the reduction of wages but about the number of hours necessary for the occupation. Agriculture is different from other industries because where you have stock, a certain number of hours must be worked.

Mr. Smith: I am not complaining about that; I am saying that in order to give the farm-worker a square deal, there should have been some guidance to agricultural wages committees as to what the minimum wage carried with it. I recognise that on a farm you cannot strictly work factory hours but you can work in better conditions now than in the past and if you are to make agriculture prosperous you must face that fact. In the ordinary heavy industries, where employers and employés are highly organised, discussions take place and differences are removed without any friction. Unfortunately, in agriculture, owing to the scattered nature of the industry, its workers are not so well organised as some other workers and the effect is that the men are not getting quite the same protection as trade unionists in other industries. I want to bring to the notice of the Committee one or two things which are now agitating the mind of the National Union of Agricultural Workers and into which I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to inquire. Here is a letter I received to-day from the General Secretary of the Union. It says:
We have an important matter which should be raised in the House and it is the widespread dismissal of farm workers now that the minimum rate has been raised to 48s. a week. You can draw your own conclusions from the following examples and I may say they are coming in now every day.

Here is one from Somerset:
Our branch secretary has been dismissed on the grounds that the farmer cannot afford to pay the increase in wages.
That is not the real reason. The letter goes on:
At Ottringham, near Hull, one of our members has been sacked because his boss said he could not pay the increased wages. Other members are complaining that farmers in the district, when their sons are due to join the Armed Forces, sack their workers and then plead they are short of men in order to keep their own sons from doing their military duties. Our district organiser has been instructed to proceed to this district to make full inquiries and report. The report is not yet to hand.
Our East Norfolk organiser reports to-day that in his district farmers are standing men off although there is plenty of work to be done.
He states that a certain farmer stood off five men out of eight and goes on to say:
Our members in this district suggest that if the farmers will not farm properly the Government should take it over.
Here is one from another district, in Suffolk:
At our county conference last Saturday it was reported that since the introduction of the 48s. minimum rate some members have already been discharged and others have received notice to leave. A resolution was passed strongly protesting against the employment of women in agriculture while fully skilled men are unemployed. The conference was careful to state that it did not object to the employment of women as such.
In Monmouthshire there is another case which needs investigation but I will not read the letter because it involves a matter concerning the War Office. I am prepared, however, to submit this document to the Department, to have the matter investigated. We are asking workers throughout the country, and farm-workers in particular, to put their best into the national war effort. Up to now they have done so and farm-workers as well as others in the country are prepared to do their best to see us through this war. Frankly, I have taken the view that the one and only thing to do now is to win this war. In saying this, I am voicing the sentiments of more than 99 per cent. of the population who wish to see it through, come what may and however great the sacrifices.
In conclusion, may I say that we ought to give these farm-workers, who have been neglected throughout the centuries, who have been the butt of music-hall


comedians, who have inspired poets and song-writers and have been looked upon by some industrial workers as having not quite the same intelligence as the townsmen—which is certainly not true—the treatment they deserve. They are skilled folk, as sturdy, hard-working and patriotic a body of men as any in the world and, like the hon. Member for Evesham who has said that as long as he is in the House he will plead for cheap capital for farmers, I shall never hesitate to ask the powers-that-be for fair treatment for the agricultural worker. Agriculture has long been the Cinderella of our industries. The farmer, too, is entitled to fair treatment, but I ask the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary not to forget the farm-worker, to do their best to redress his grievances and to let him feel that he is getting "a fair crack of the whip."

7.38 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Boles: May I beg the indulgence of the Committee, usually so courteously extended to one who is making his maiden speech? I have only two points to raise. First, I must assume that the Minister of Agriculture is conversant with many forms of what are called siphonaptera which in some cases are such a curse to farmers. A more particular variety of it is known as pulex irritans which is reputed to carry on its back members of smaller species and so on until they are reduced ad infinitum both in numbers and in size. I think that analogy might, possibly, apply to the Prime Minister surrounded by his Ministers. Each Minister bites him in some peculiar place. The Minister of Agriculture, to take one of these virulent creatures, is also being bitten in numerous places by various bodies and committees, perhaps the National Farmers' Union or the county executive committees—and so it goes down the scale. They are being bitten by a host of farmers and the farmer is bitten by a host of other parasites and insects. It is to one or two of these worries and troubles that I wish to refer.
The most irritating sore at the moment is, perhaps, the question of the new vaccine for tuberculin tests for dairy herds. This has only recently been brought into general use and it has caused a good deal of disorganisation among the herds. I do not think we can judge from that fact that the incidence of tuber-

culous infection has gone up by leaps and bounds. It is merely the new standard vaccine, which seems to have a surer effect on possibly doubtful cases which would have escaped under the old vaccine. That, no doubt, is all to the good but its introduction at this moment causes alarm and despondency among owners of some herds of long standing. That is one of the things that bites the poor farmer. There is another which, perhaps, is not very general but which I have come across in my constituency, and that is the question of sheep. My constituency is almost entirely milk. It is nothing but milk, morning, noon and night in most cases. In fact, on more than one occasion I have told the farmers that I do not consider that they are farmers at all but merely milking machines. All the more for that reason one wants to draw attention to the farmer who really tries to farm and produce bread.
Bread, in a milk country, is almost forgotten, and after all it is about the most staple thing that we shall require in the long run. In order to produce bread, it is essential, on certain soils at any rate, that sheep should be hurdled on the land. You may say that artificial manure will take its place but on certain soils I am not at all sure that the effect is as good as the hurdling of the sheep and the farmyard manure. It is just that farmer who in a milking district is apt to be forgotten in the supply of feeding-stuffs for which the Minister is making arrangements, for the dairy herds to be maintained during the winter time. If some arrangement could be made for these sheep-keepers to get their ration of any feeding-stuffs that is going, they would be very grateful.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Wilfrid Roberts: I should like to congratulate the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken on the very practical points that he has brought to the attention of the Minister, and to welcome him to our agricultural Debates. I want to make a few short and, possibly, disconnected points. The first is that I and the Committee generally, welcome the approach which the Minister is making in what he has told us to-day to the problem of producing more food. I am very glad that he has been going round the country meeting the executives face to face. I am sure that is valuable. There has been


hitherto a tendency to keep counties in watertight compartments and for one county not to know what another is doing. A very healthy rivalry might develop, if we knew a little more of what was being done in one county and another. Perhaps the institution of liaison officers, which I am sure is an excellent arrangement, may help in that direction.
If there was one question which I felt the Minister did not deal with adequately it was that of credit. He was quite right, I think, in saying that it is impossible to have equality of sacrifice. Each farm has to be dealt with individually. The right hon. Gentleman has introduced a new range of prices. He did not say anything about it to-day, but we note that he has withdrawn a concession to farmers in their Income Tax assessment, giving the reason that some farmers might and will, under the new prices, make considerable profits. It is equally true that, while some farmers have a preponderance of capital, some are exceedingly short, and to rely on the banks is not an adequate way of dealing with under-farmed land. It will be very difficult for the officers and the executive committees to force a man who has not the means to improve his farm. While in the worst cases it may be possible to turn a man out of his farm, there are borderline cases. If credit at cheaper terms than 5 per cent. were available, it would be of real assistance in bringing the farms back to a better state of cultivation. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary can tell us something more as to what is intended in regard to payment of Income Tax by farmers in the future. I think that is a subject which many farmers will like to know about and at the same time perhaps he will tell us how the Excess Profits Tax is going to affect the farming community. Is it intended where the level of profit has been exceedingly low, that that level should be stabilised? If we can be told anything of that, I shall be glad.
There is one other big question which gives the farming community an immense amount of trouble and on which the Minister touched. I am not quite clear about it. That is the feeding-stuffs position. Though I am sure each individual farmer ought to plan his production on the basis of producing the largest propor-

tion of feeding-stuffs for his own requirements that he possibly can, nevertheless there are types of farming where, if one knows what is likely to be available, one can plan ahead. Without knowing what is likely to be available, you cannot plan at all. I am thinking particularly of the intensive forms of poultry and pig farming, which, although they are to be cut down, will still exist. If a poultry or pig farmer knows that, provided there are feeding-stuffs at all, he will get a certain quantity, he can make his programme accordingly. I am not confident that anything that has been done so far will ensure that he knows this. I wonder whether it is quite impossible to work out a ration system. The merchants are now being rationed on a satisfactory basis, and I wonder whether that system cannot be carried through to the individual farmer, and whether a pig farmer or a poultry farmer cannot be told that, provided things go on normally, he will get so many tons or hundredweights a month. It might be that things would not go on normally, and that such a farmer would get only a proportion, but in that case, everybody would have his supplies cut down by 10, 15 or 20 per cent., whatever it might be, of the ration to which he had thought he would be entitled. Would it not be possible for the firms concerned to work out what their customers got last year in an average month and during the winter, and then to make that the basis of calculation? I have been told by one very large firm that if they brought their travellers off the roads, where they are not needed at the present time, and set them to work in the office for a fortnight, they could work out what each farmer's quota should be on the basis of previous business. This would make it possible to give confidence to the farmers that they would all be treated alike.
What is the position in the countryside at the present time? We have been asked to reduce poultry and pig stocks to onethird—not one-third of the pre-war figure, but one-third of what we had last autumn. Some people reduced their stocks last autumn, and the patriotic people who did so are being asked to reduce again. A great number of people always hope for the best, and these farmers hope that their neighbours also will reduce their stocks. It may be that poultry farming, because of the great shortage of eggs that will exist, will be profitable for those who


can carry on, but it seems to me that it will be very unfair if the thing is not done on a regular basis, and if, for instance, the poultry farmer who pays well is able to get more than the one who does not pay quite so well.
There is one point I would like particularly to make. It is all wrong to force everybody to reduce his stocks equally. It is wrong, from the point of view of general justice, to ask a St. Dunstan's blind soldier to reduce as much as a man who started a year or two ago. I wonder whether the Minister has really given much thought yet to the question of reducing stocks of poultry and pigs. I hope he will give it a little bit more consideration before the autumn gets much nearer. Surely, the right thing to do would be to have a ration scheme and to tell the executives to go round and distribute that ration to the farmers. A limbless or blind ex-Service man who is a poultry farmer ought to have a much higher proportion than other people. Another consideration that ought to be borne in mind is the efficiency of the farms. An efficient farm which is making good use of the feeding-stuffs which it receives should have priority over the less efficient farm. That would be difficult to administer, but one could tell the poultry and pig men that unless they registered and got their quota, they would not get any feeding-stuffs. I suggest that on some basis of that sort the thing could be worked more fairly.
This assumes that the reduction of stocks is necessary, and I wonder whether it is, and whether the question has been given real consideration. The question of the relative nutritive value of various foodstuffs produced by the farmers is an important one. Obviously, milk is important. Eggs are important as far as proteins are concerned. I wonder whether the beef men, who are well organised, have not perhaps had a little bit more consideration than they deserve on the scientific basis of what the consuming population needs. Two-thirds of our egg supplies from abroad have gone. I do not know from where additional eggs are to come, but if our stocks are to be reduced, I think it means that the population will not have eggs for breakfast next winter. That may be right, but I ask the Minister whether it is right to give the beef men such a high priority. Surely, there is an immense amount of land that ought to bear arable crops which is now

producing beef. The egg is a very valuable contribution to our diet, and is probably more important than some forms of beef. I hope the Minister will give attention to this difficult problem of a reduction of stocks—first, whether the full rigour of what has been announced is necessary, and if so, what steps are being taken to see that it is carried out fairly; and secondly, whether it is impossible, with the co-operation of the Ministry of Food, to work out a system to ensure that what happened last winter does not happen next winter, and that there is an equal distribution of feeding stuffs and not such an unequal distribution as there was last year.
I should like to make a point about drainage. I very much welcome the subsidy for tile drainage. It has been valuable in certain districts which I know in the North-West. The amount of £7 10s. is perhaps hardly enough, but I will not be too ungrateful about that. The cost of drainage has gone up, and it will be very difficult to get the men to do the work now. If the Minister's wise decision had been taken two years ago £7 10s. would have been very much more welcome.

Mr. Hudson: I would point out to the hon. Member that if it had been introduced two years ago, or even six months ago, the figure would have been a smaller one.

Mr. Roberts: The practical point which I want to make is that that part of the cost payable by the landowner should be dealt with in the same way as in some other schemes, and that there should be a provision that the landowner may pay his share spread over a number of years. That would be a real help to many landowners who are not too well off at the present time. In conclusion, I want to say that the farming community is ready to do its best. The farmers realise the gravity of the situation, and I am sure they will give the Minister all possible assistance.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: I would not have dared to intervene in this Debate but for the fact that I have promised various persons that I would try to obtain an answer to a question from the joint Parliamentary Secretary. First of all may I be allowed to congratulate


the Minister, and his Joint Parliamentary Secretary on their appearance, and also, if I may, to congratulate the Minister on his grasp of a new subject? I have always believed it was necessary, in regard to these complicated subjects, for a new Minister to have a very profound previous knowledge of them, but that conclusion has been shaken by the speech which the right hon. Gentleman has made to-day, because he seems to have grasped the essentials of the subject in a very short space of time. There have been speeches made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winterton), and they have, at times, waxed rhetorical about agriculture. For myself, I have held for many years that we shall never obtain a proper agricultural population until we take more trouble in giving earlier training on the land. I have tried to do something in this respect in previous years, and in another office, and I am immensely relieved to know that at this moment the Ministry of Agriculture have taken over from the Ministry of Labour the scheme, originally designed only for boys from Special Areas, and that it now applies to boys from whatever part of the country they may come. That is an immense advance.
As I understand it, there is an additional scheme which has been worked out between the Ministry of Agriculture and the Board of Education, covering boys from elementary schools who; under certain conditions, go on to the land. There never was a time in the history of this country when more boys between 14 and 15 have been in the country districts. This, of course, is due to evacuation. Farm institutes have in many cases closed down, and the staffs have been used for excellent practical work. I wish to obtain from the joint Parliamentary Secretary, when he replies, a statement of where the Y.M.C.A. scheme stands at the moment in relation to the new scheme of the Board and the Ministry of Agriculture. How many boys between 14 and 15 is it hoped to put on the land? This is a unique opportunity to get almost a new generation of young fellows, who for the first time have been forced, as it were, to be in the country, to start a career on the land. This is not just an academic

point, but something which would be of great help to the Minister when looking for fresh labour. I would like the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, in his reply, to make a statement, because although I have asked questions on the subject, I have been unable to obtain a satisfactory reply.

8.5 p.m.

Mrs. Tate: I feel a certain nervousness in criticising one or two of the remarks made by the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts). His knowledge of agriculture is very extensive, whereas mine is only limited, but I think that his remarks with regard to the feeding-stuff position may be inclined to lead farmers astray. In the Minister's first broadcast he said that we must reduce our pig population by two-thirds, and our poultry population by the same amount. His time, of course, was exceedingly limited, but I am certain that, although the Minister did make that statement, he did not wish to see two-thirds of the pig population of the country slaughtered. I believe that he wished to make it plain to pig breeders that they would be able to have only sufficient food to keep alive one-third of their existing pig herds, but that if the pig population were scattered in pig clubs and so forth, there would not be in that case the necessity for slaughtering two-thirds of them.
I am afraid that, serious as that broadcast was, and clear as the Minister's statement was about the food shortage, it has not really sunk home in the minds of the farming community. I am convinced that the average farmer—or in any case a great many farmers—has not fully appreciated it, and has not made plans to cope with the situation which will arise in the winter with regard to feeding-stuffs. We all know that lately there has been a more satisfactory price for milk, but I very much regret to say that in some parts of the country farmers, in order to obtain a larger milk yield, have, even at the present time, been feeding some of their dairy herds on a certain amount of oil cake in addition to the grass they have been obtaining. That is a very serious state of affairs. They may be getting a larger milk yield now, but they have been using food which ought not to have been touched at this time of the year. I hope that when the Joint Parliamentary Secretary replies he will make it as clear


as is humanly possible that the oil cakes are not going to be there, and that such stocks must be kept exclusively for the winter.
I know that the Minister is very interested in encouraging the production of silage, but I wonder whether a little more cannot be done in this direction before the winter is upon us. We have now had rain, and owing to the very early hay crop we may have another grass crop which could easily be converted into silage. In many instances the farmer will say that owing to the shortage of timber he cannot construct a silo, but I urge upon the Minister to go in for a little more advertising, and to demonstrate the possibility of utilising pit silos, because it is possible to manufacture silage without having a wooden silo. We all realise, although the prices the farmer is getting are rather more satisfactory than in the past, that there is an urgent necessity to do what we can to lower the cost of running his farm. I do not think there is any better way in which that could be done than by encouraging the production of silage. Even to-day the cost of silage per ton is only 10s., compared with £14 per ton for oil cakes. Therefore, a small amount of additional silage will be of tremendous advantage when the winter comes with the difficulties which we shall have to face in the feeding-stuffs position. The hon. Member for North Cumberland urged the Minister to consider who should get the existing feeding-stuff supplies. While I sympathise with his point of view, and agree that, for instance, an ex-Service man with a poultry farm should have more consideration than a man who has recently started a farm, I am much afraid that the feeding-stuffs position may be so serious that we shall not be able to consider it on that basis at all.

Mr. W. Roberts: May I explain what I mean? The Minister has told us that everybody has to cut down. I am suggesting that it would be fairer to cut out entirely some poultry farmers and leave the ex-Service man with a little more. The Minister must have some basis on which to cut down, and as one-third of the feeding-stuffs will be available I suggest that an average level cut of two-thirds would be unfair.

Mrs. Tate: I agree with the sentiment of the hon. Member, but I think that that

would be a very difficult and arbitrary way of assessing and distributing feeding-stuffs. It sounds easy in theory, but in practice it would produce terrible hardship. We must ration according to the things in the country that have to be maintained, and the first thing to maintain is the milk supply. I am afraid that it will not be a case of rationing one poultry farmer against another, but a case of saying what we have to maintain in the country and what it is imperative to produce. The first thing that it is imperative to produce is milk. It is well known that, if necessary, we could maintain our health and strength on a diet of vegetables, milk, cheese and bread, and that we could live without eggs and meat.

Mr. Turton: But not fight on it.

Mrs. Tate: It is a wholesome peasant diet. It may not be an interesting diet, but you could maintain health and strength on it if you are forced to do so. I would urge that greater consideration should be given to the production of milk and that when that question is considered there should be close co-operation between the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Food. There is in existence an Order which prohibits a man manufacturing cheese if he sells milk, and I suggest that, in view of the importance of encouraging the manufacture of cheese, which is so easy to store on the farms, that Order should be rescinded for the duration of the war. Cheese is one of the most valuable foods we can produce, especially the cheese made on the farm, which is of far greater nutritive value than the small manufactured cheeses from the factories which have a large percentage of water. In view of the importance of cheese I would urge that for the duration of the war there should be no question of the pasteurisation of milk. I realise that I am not in agreement with a good many hon. Members on that point.

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown): I am afraid that the hon. Lady is now touching on a Vote which we are not discussing.

Mrs. Tate: I was afraid that you would soon notice that fact, Colonel Clifton Brown. I only wished to urge closer co-operation between the various Departments on this matter. In the event of invasion extraordinary powers are vested


in the Regional Commissioners, and I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to make it clear how the agricultural community are to get their instructions from the centre in the event of that taking place. There is a little uncertainty about what powers the Regional Commissioners will have over the farming community and how farmers will be able to get into touch with them. I was a little worried over the remarks of the Minister with regard to housing the increased staff which he said he would need on the land. He rather skirted over that subject. I hope that there will be no question of moving from the homes they have inhabited for many years the families of men who are serving at the Front who were previously serving on the land. So many people have had their homes broken up that I hope that in no case the homes of these people will be touched.

8.17 p.m.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: I am glad that the hon. Lady the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) has mentioned the question of feeding-stuffs, because I rise to make a point in connection with it. Like other Members, I heard the dreadful broadcast of the Minister of Agriculture, and I am not sure that I applauded what he said. It might have been better if, before advising the pig breeders and poultry keepers to be prepared to get rid of two-thirds of their stocks before the autumn, the Ministry had given more attention to the possibility of finding an alternative supply of food. I want to address the Committee on that point and to refer to the possibility of feeding-stuffs being made from kitchen refuse. I have introduced this subject in the House before, and, because up to now the Ministry of Agriculture do not appear to have shown very great interest in it, I am venturing to have another try.
I do not particularly blame the Ministry of Agriculture. I think that the reason why such a tremendous opportunity has been lost by the people generally and the Government particularly, an opportunity which the people would whole-heartedly have taken, has been that, as in other instances with which some of us are familiar, two or three Government Departments are concerned. They are the Ministries of Agriculture, Supply and Food.

None of them has appeared to be very anxious to hold the baby, and between them very little has been done. There has been an anxiety in some of the negotiations I have had to conduct to push it from one Department to another. The present position is, therefore, entirely unsatisfactory. I raised this matter in the House in January, and pointed out that in one locality of which I have knowledge, by a simple piece of organisation and at no extra cost to the rate-payers or anybody else, but merely by the exercise of common sense, 20 tons of kitchen refuse very suitable for pig food had been secured each week over a period of several months. That statement created some interest in the House, and soon afterwards 50 Members of Parliament accepted an invitation to come and see what was actually being done. There were all kinds of criticisms and suggestions, but the general view was that it was an exceedingly interesting experiment and they wished it well.
Many months have passed since then, and I shall now tell the Committee of one or two things which have happened since. If the suggestions that were made as long ago as January last had been followed up there would have been no need for the Minister's broadcast; but no guidance in this matter was given by any Government Department. On the occasion when the 50 Members of Parliament came to see the experiment the Minister of Supply was among them, and on that account, I suppose, the Minister of Agriculture considered the matter had nothing more to do with him and left it to the Minister of Supply. As a result of the publicity given to the experiment, a number of local authorities started to do the same thing, but, as I say, without any guidance, so far as I know, from any Government Department. But the warm weather came and brought with it two difficulties. The first was that a weekly collection of kitchen refuse became impossible. We could not ask housewives to keep their kitchen refuse for a whole week, because when it was collected it was often a mass of flies and maggots. Therefore, the local authority to which I have been referring, my own Borough Council of Tottenham, decided to make a daily collection.
It is not easy—and that is why I regret that the Government Departments do not


seem to have been interested—to introduce first a weekly collection, at no additional expense, and to collect 20 tons of feeding-stuff a week, and then to follow that up by introducing a daily collection, again at no additional expense, and to collect 40 tons a week. The Parliamentary Secretary may ask, "How did you do it?" It was done by putting the road sweepers on to the work. They have been going from door to door. The Ministry of Supply has been talking about making a compulsory Order that housewives must keep their kitchen refuse apart, instead of putting it in the dust-bins, but in Tottenham, without any compulsion at all, we have had 70 per cent. of the householders doing it voluntarily for the past month, and we are now collecting 40 tons a week. The next difficulty we had to contend with was that after we had collected the refuse and treated it at the central depot it became unusable, during the warm weather, before we could get it to the farmers, some of whom are 150 miles away. To deal with that situation we installed a processing machine, and the product will now keep from 12 to 14 days, even in warm weather. It finds a ready market at £4 a ton, and we are told that analysis has shown it to be as good as feeding-stuffs sold at £13 a ton. We could sell all we produce 20 times over. We are sending it as far as Devonshire. Seeing that there are large cities like Bristol and Exeter so much nearer to Devonshire, why we should be sending kitchen refuse collected from our householders in Tottenham down to Devonshire passes my comprehension.
I have heard farmers and experts on pigs—I am neither—say that pigs cannot be fed properly for any length of time upon what is called "swill." We have Droved that that is not so. We have 100 pigs, and they are as good pigs as can be found anywhere. That has been testified to by pig experts from all over the country, and testified to, also, by Her Majesty the Queen, who came to see them this afternoon and said she had not seen such excellent pigs for many years. As I have said, an appeal was made by wireless to people to save their kitchen refuse, and many people started to do so, and many local authorities began to collect it, but no Government Department appeared to be sufficiently interested to give a lead to the country beyond sup-

porting the general broadcast; and the position we have now arrived at is that many local authorities find in this warm weather that after they have collected the kitchen refuse all they can do with it is to burn it directly they get it to the destructor.
I am now going to tell the Parliamentary Secretary what we propose to do in the Borough of Tottenham, and to say that we shall appreciate the help of the Ministry of Agriculture, but I would add, and I hope that he will not think that I am being rude, that whether we get his help or not we are going to do it. We propose to instal another processing machine, twice the size of the one we have at present. To do that we shall need a little help from a Government Department—not the hon. Member's Department. We want him to use his influence with the Ministry of Supply to get us a priority order to enable us to obtain that machine. If we get that help we shall be able to have the new machine working within a fortnight. With that new machine, plus the one we have already, we shall be able to provide 150 tons of feeding-stuffs a week, because we shall be working the machines 24 hours a day. With the addition of 15 to 20 per cent. of feeding meal, that 150 tons will be enough to feed 10,000 pigs. I am making that estimate on a rough calculation that one ton of food is enough to feed 50 pigs for a week.
The Parliamentary Secretary may ask where we are going to get the kitchen refuse to make 150 tons a week. The answer is perfectly simple. I have told him that, at the present time, we are collecting 40 tons per week from our own locality; we have also been approached within the last week or two by other local authorities. Their requests are becoming more and more urgent every day, as the pressure increases, because some of these local authorities are collecting kitchen refuse but have no processing machines such as we have, and are being driven into the position, although the public do not yet know it, after collecting this kitchen refuse, of having to burn it. One of our neighbouring authorities, with a population twice as big as ours, has offered to give us all its kitchen refuse, amounting to 100 tons per week. Another adjoining authority, having heard that we had a machine that could process the stuff, has


approached us in a similar way. The result is that we shall not find the slightest difficulty in getting 150 tons of kitchen refuse per week. We are prepared to process it 24 hours a day by putting it through the machine, and so producing enough food to keep 10,000 pigs.
I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will think that that is a considerable contribution, made by a town which has nothing much to do with agriculture. It is an entirely new contribution. None of that food for 10,000 pigs was being provided before, and it is an entirely new source of supply. I said a month or two ago that I would tell the Parliamentary Secretary what we proposed to do, in the hope that the Ministry would help us. In any case, we are going to do it. The next thing we shall do is to get a new machine double the size. We know where there is one, and, with a little bit of help from the Ministry of Supply, we shall get it, and have it installed within a fortnight. Nobody else wants it, or is likely to use it for some time, and we do not think there will be any difficulty about it. We are not asking for any money. We have the money and we shall pay for the machine.
The next thing we want to do, having kept 100 pigs successfully for eight or nine months, and thus demonstrated that we can feed them, is to keep 1,000 pigs, in one of our public parks. That may seem somewhat of an innovation, but we claim that more people will go into the public parks to see 1,000 pigs than will go to see the tulips and the carnations. We propose to keep 1,000 pigs; what do we want from the Government? We want them to remember that we are living in an emergency. We want the Ministry of Agriculture and other Government Departments to close their eyes to the fact that what we propose will, in fact, be a municipal piggery. Have the Ministry of Agriculture any objection to our setting up a municipal piggery? If we do so with our 1,000 pigs, we shall require only 20 tons of kitchen refuse to feed them. We shall still be able to put into the common pool of feeding-stuffs of the country somethink like 130 tons, in addition to what we shall ourselves use. In return for that very great contribution to the pool, we ask the Ministry of Agriculture to make it possible, in whatever way they like, for us to keep this piggery. If they object to our running it as a municipal

piggery, we shall be glad to receive any suggestion from them as to whether we should make it a co-operative piggery or a smallholders' or small pigkeepers' piggery. We do not mind, but we are determined to go on and keep 1,000 pigs ourselves, because the people in our district are clamouring for them.
Another reason which should appeal particularly to the heart of the Parliamentary Secretary arises out of the fact that the Ministry recently decided to abrogate all the rules and regulations about keeping pigs in backyards. It is a very dangerous thing, but I am not complaining about it. It may be dangerous, particularly, if the idea of keeping pigs catches on in small, congested areas. Therefore, as people who take an active interest in municipal life, we think we are doing the country a really good turn by stepping in quickly before people in the mean streets begin here and there to get pigs, collect food and feed them. In our collective way, we are gathering the food now from door to door, taking it all to a central place, putting 1,000 pigs into a public park a long way from any houses, and so doing useful work by discouraging what nobody wants to see done, people keeping pigs in their backyards in the congested streets of the town. I hope that the Minister will look at this matter very sympathetically.
I have reached almost the end of what I wanted to say. I would like the Minister to encourage us by saying that we are not tied down. I do not want that we should be tripped up just now by being told that we have no legal powers, as a municipality, to set up a municipal piggery. If there is any other way in which we can get round it, we want to be able to have the full support of the Ministry of Agriculture. In turn, we shall make a really valuable contribution. In return for producing 150 tons of food we want the Ministry's authority to obtain from three to four tons of feeding-meal per week. We need it because we shall feed the pigs on 80 to 85 per cent. kitchen refuse and 15 to 20 per cent. meal, according to their age. Therefore, to keep 1,000 pigs, we shall need about three or four tons of feeding-meal per week. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to be good enough to give consideration to that reasonable request. We are making a great contribution, nearly 150 tons of kitchen refuse that was never


used for pig-feeding before. If we cannot act as a municipality or as a vast corporation, make us a branch of the Small Pigkeepers' Council, if you like. We do not mind. We shall be pleased to keep 1,000 pigs in that locality, and if the Minister can see his way to let us have that small amount of meal we shall be very grateful.
I apologise for speaking for so long. I am sorry to have confined my remarks to one district. I need not remind the Minister that this is not a local question, and if he had been here I would ask him why he does not organise the collection of town refuse on a national scale. It would be better to do that than to make gloomy speeches on the wireless. You have not tried out what can be done from alternative sources of supply. There are vast municipalities in the country, and there are people waiting. As to whether there is a lack of machines, we have obtained one machine, and we shall obtain another in a few days. Another place in the East End of London, Stratford, can handle 200 or 300 tons of this stuff almost every day. There is a farm down in Devonshire where there is an apparatus used to make cider, but which can deal with this kitchen refuse. If the Minister would organise this matter on a national scale, we should have a much more optimistic outlook than we have at the present time. I hope that he will give sympathetic attention to the points which I have put before the Committee.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. Turton: The speech which we have just heard interested me specially, because one of my recent experiences in agriculture has been in going across France and Belgium with two pigs per company and feeding them on what was left over every day. We had great success, and we made a great financial success of that military operation. Unfortunately, other military operations terminated it. I listened to the broadcast by the Minister of Agriculture, and I agree with what was said by the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison). It is unfortunate to talk too much about slaughter. We ought to tell people now that they cannot expect to rely upon imported feeding-stuffs and that if they are willing to keep pigs or poultry, they must be able to support them from their own resources, or, anyhow, largely from their own

resources. By and large, each producer has to plan to support the livestock that he is carrying, whether it is in his backyard, his park or his farm. Therefore, we should encourage the mixed type of farming as much as possible.
The other tendency which, I think, is growing and which also is unfortunate, is this laying of special weight on milk and saying we can live without meat. The problem to-day is one of providing for our garrisons during the immediate future, and we shall not get a good strong force of men guarding this island unless we ensure that our meat and beef production is safe and flourishing. The whole nature of our agricultural problem is changed. It is no use talking, as I have heard many hon. and right hon. Members talking in this Committee, of a long-term policy for agriculture. After the war that will have tremendous importance because new problems will arise, but for the moment we are faced with the immediate problem of increasing production tremendously in this present cropping season and the next—no further. That is the task into which I feel we have to put a little more energy than even we are doing at the present time.
The great problem, in my view, is labour. I am not satisfied, from what I have seen in the country since I got back, from what I have read and even from what I heard from the Minister of Agriculture this afternoon, that the problem of labour is sufficiently appreciated and provided for. We have had a lot of fine weather, and on the law of averages we shall get a good deal of wet. Therefore, it is vital that we should so increase our labour on the land that we can get our crops in quickly and in good condition. In many parts of the country that I visited there is certainly a shortage of labour, and I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to apply his mind to that problem. I wish to make a suggestion to him. There are back from France at the present time a number of men who were previously agricultural workers but who are still in the Army. There is in particular a number of R.A.S.C. drivers who were called up in the early stages, who are by trade tractor drivers and who were in the lines of communication area in France. Those men, in my view, could be brought out of the Army for the next three months, put back in the rural areas and should drive continuously for


those three months the tractors and the other motor implements of the farm. We have the harvest and after the harvest that period of breaking up the stubbles, and I hope also of increasing the arable acreage of this country. I believe that if those men were brought back to the countryside on light leave for three months, they would add to our food production, and, what is more, by their military experience they would probably give even greater stability to the Local Defence Volunteers in the area. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to apply his mind to that problem. We must get men back on to the land.
I heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) deploring the fact that the girls' Land Army had not been quite successful. One of the reasons is that the job of an agricultural labourer is skilled, and at the present time it is a mechanical job; you must, therefore, get the right men on to it, and do not let us forget that the question of agricultural production at the moment is first and foremost a matter of defence. We must have in agriculture men as good as in any other branch of the Defence Forces. The Minister talked about drainage. I was sorry when the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) said that £7 10s. was not enough, and I saw the Minister nod. That seemed to me to be a pre-war attitude to this problem of agriculture. We must get this land drained. The Minister says he is giving 50 per cent. of the cost up to £7 10s. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give us the figure on which he bases the cost of draining an acre at £15. The lowest cost previous to the war in August was in the region of £22 an acre for properly draining agricultural land in my area. Since then I am glad that wages in the countryside have risen, and I hope with them the wages of those engaged in land drainage.
I should have expected the cost of properly tiling and draining an acre of land to-day to be in the region of £30. In that case, if you are going to offer £7 10s. as 50 per cent., you will not get the response that you need to your drainage policy. I should like to see it made definitely 50 per cent., whatever the cost. Otherwise we must tell the Parliamentary Secretary that if he is offering £7 10s.,

some farmers will spend merely £15 on draining an acre, and when they do that repeating the same mistake as has been done in drainage, certainly since 1870 in our area; you get your drains too far apart, and it is really a waste of tiles to put them into the land. You must work out how far apart the tiles are and put them at that distance. It is no good draining heavy land 12 yards between the tiles. You must have it at the proper distance and put the full amount of money into that work. I hope that before this matter comes again before the House due consideration will be given to that fact. We want to see the land productive, and the nation must take its share of the expense in maintaining the land.
The other point as well as labour which is important is credit, and I do not think the Minister fully appreciates that fact. Quite rightly, we have raised agricultural wages to 48s., but there is a time lag before the farmer gets the benefit of the increased prices; therefore, it is paramount that the Government should give credit to tide over that period, otherwise the farmer will not increase his labour force as he should. If he has to go to the bank and borrow money at 5 per cent., 6 per cent., or even 7 per cent. if he is not particularly credit-worthy, he is not able to farm that land as he should, and it is up to the Government to-day to put the credit system right for agriculture in relation to this immediate problem of increasing production.
I heard the Minister appeal to farmers to lay in their store of fertilisers three months in advance. That appeal received this response in our area: "How are we to do it if we have not got the money for it? If the Government will put forward a scheme by which the farmers are enabled to get the credit for that fertiliser there will be some success in the scheme, but if we have to go to the banks or to a merchant or to a big money-lending firm, like the United Dominions Trust, who charge 5, 6 or 7 per cent., then it is not economical and the farmers will not do it." I hope that the first job that the Minister will undertake will be that of putting credit right. This House has made this subject one of ridicule at times. It is not a matter of ridicule; it is matter of real concern. If the farmer is not credit-worthy, it is our fault, the nation's


fault. Now, in war-time, when agriculture is a Department of Defence, we must see that nobody is hampered, through lack of credit, in farming his land to the best of his ability.
The Minister made some vague threats in regard to farmers who are not able to undertake what the war executive committees demand, saying that the farmers in that case should have the duty taken over from them by those committees. The failure, in most cases, will arise from lack of credit. No farmer, if he has the credit and the labour, will fail to undertake work for the improvement of his land, and for aiding the nation; but if he has not the credit, if you are denying him the credit, it is wrong to punish him by taking the control and working of his land out of his hands. I did not quite like the Minister's attitude when he was talking about those committees. In my area the committees have been a tremendous help, they have acted in a friendly, advisory capacity, and have not shown the mailed fist, but if the Minister talks in that style there is a danger that the farming community will feel that those committees are dictatorial bodies and are their enemies, ready to trip them up and take their land from them. We want co-operation between those committees and the farmers. I believe that one of the ways to get it would be by giving the committees the power and the money to make loans at 2 per cent. to the farmers. Then you would get co-operation between the committees and the farmers, and the Government, who have kept the rate of interest very satisfactorily low in this country for the most part, could afford to lend to farmers at 2 per cent. Then, I believe that we should be able in agriculture to play our part in the defence of this country, and that each farmer, as a section leader looking after his section, would be able to keep his land intact.

8.54 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: One curious feature of this Debate is that I do not believe any Member who has spoken in the Debate is now in the Chamber, with the exception of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), and he has not had time to go out. It is a striking testimony to the lack of interest which is taken in a subject of this character. I make that comment by way

of protest. In the Ministry of Agriculture there have been many changes recently, but I hope that there will be in future a settled policy, and that one Minister will be kept at that job. I am not intimately acquainted with the present Minister. He has tried many jobs, but I hope that he will now settle down to one. As for the Parliamentary Secretary, I am glad that he holds that position. If anyone in the House has earned his position, it is he. Everyone knows how devoted a miner is to his calling, and for a miner to have turned to agriculture and acquired such a knowledge of it as the hon. Member has, shows strikingly what a Labour man can do. He carries the best wishes of all Members on the Labour Benches. I was interested to hear the Minister's remark that he expected that during the first 12 months of the war period we should be able to produce more than we did during the first 18 months of the last war. That is a remarkable thing, and it augurs well for the stability of our island home, in spite of losses by enemy action.
I would urge people to make better use of the land of this country. The hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison) spoke of a scheme for keeping 1,000 pigs. I wondered where they were to be kept, and he said that the public parks were to be used. It may be a startling suggestion that pigs should be kept in a public park, but I agree with it. I hope that during the war we shall not keep parks simply to cater for the aesthetic tastes of the people. Aesthetic tastes are all right when things are going well, but in a time of grim necessity it is better to fill the bellies of the people with substantial food than to have beautiful flowers in the parks. That brings me to the question of the Royal parks. We have always been proud of our Royal parks.

The Deputy-Chairman: The Royal parks cannot be discussed now. There is a specific Vote for them.

Mr. Tinker: Then I will just say that much of the open spaces which are used in London for the benefit of the people in times of peace, by giving them peaceful surroundings, could be turned to better use now by converting them into allotments or by utilising them in the manner referred to by the hon. Member for North Tottenham. He said that he was afraid


that they might be prevented from using the parks in that way by the existence of particular rules, but I do not think that rules of that sort would stop people doing that kind of thing. I do not believe anyone would challenge them if they were providing food for the nation. Dirt tracks, racecourses and places of that sort also could be turned to advantage. There is a great outcry at present against the uses to which racecourses, dirt tracks and dog tracks are being put. Here is a chance for the Minister of Agriculture to use them to produce food for the people. I believe that such a step would be welcomed with acclamation by everybody. This afternoon we were speaking about the people from the Channel Islands coming here, and how we were to provide work for them. If some of these open spaces were turned to the use I have suggested, these people could be put on useful employment. It is really remarkable how in industrial areas people are asking the councils to provide them with allotments, so that they can do something useful. I am glad to see the way that our people responded to the call of the country in getting allotments and putting them to great use by providing not only their own households with vegetables but supplying people round about. It is a remarkable tribute to our people. I want the Ministry of Agriculture to direct their attention in that direction and not let the matter lag at all. I know that my hon. Friend who is now Parliamentary Secretary is a great believer in allotments, and I want him to keep up this policy and to do all he can on the lines I have indicated.
During my walks in the country I generally get into conversation with farmers and ask them how things are going. As a rule they grumble and say that the weather is not as it ought to be. If you say that we have had plenty of rain, they will say that they could do with some dry weather until they have got in their hay. But at the moment they feel more or less satisfied that the Government are trying to do something for them. One farmer made a complaint to me which I think is well worth consideration. Under an Order farmers receive £2 per acre for ploughing up fresh ground, and I made the remark to the farmer that he had done very well

in getting £2 an acre for the new ground that he was turning over. He said that when they ploughed they could not get close to the fence and had to leave a fraction, and that the Ministry officials measured up the fraction and deducted it from the total acreage of the field. To me, that seems to be rather mean. I should have thought that, if a field inside the fencing covered a certain acreage, and the man farming it did his ploughing as close as possible to the hedge or fence, at least the Ministry would be prepared to pay for the total acreage. He told me—I do not know whether it is correct or not—that the man who came round said that there was half a yard all round, and that the amount was calculated and deducted from the total acreage. If that is so, I think it is taking the thing rather too far. The total acreage of the field should be taken, and when the farmer has done his best to get, so to speak, as near the bone as possible, the Ministry ought to be prepared to pay for the whole acreage. It is much harder for the man with a number of small fields to plough close to the fence than it is for the man with a large field, and I suggest that this is a matter which the Parliamentary Secretary might keep in mind.
I am not a farmer's man, and I do not know much about agriculture, but I am vitally interested in the prosecution of the war, and I realise that, if we are to win the war, it is necessary, among other things, to have in our own little island sufficient food to keep us going if the enemy tries to prevent food from being brought into this country. That is why to-night I heartily join in helping the Minister of Agriculture to make every effort to win the war.

9.5 p.m.

Sir Ernest Shepperson: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) in his opening remarks mentioned that Members on the Government side of the Committee spoke and then went out of the Chamber.

Mr. Tinker: I said Members all round. I did not excuse anybody. I said all who had spoken.

Sir E. Shepperson: I want to say that I agree whole-heartedly with the hon. Member when, in his opening remarks, he offered congratulations to the hon.


Gentleman the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) who now sits on the Front Government Bench. I have been in this House for many years, and I have appreciated to the full all the interest which he has taken in this great industry during the time he has been here. The speech of the Minister this afternoon brought home to us very conclusively the great change that has come over British agriculture in the last few months. At one time agriculture was considered rather as a national luxury which was to be subsidised by the State to keep it alive for its amenity value. To-day, agriculture, and the practice of that industry, has become a national necessity. Farmers, at one time, grew whatever crops they liked in their own interests and crops which they thought would pay them best. Now, all personal gain and interest has to give way to the national interest, and farmers to-day are working in that interest, with the one object of producing the greatest possible quantity of foodstuffs in this country. The agricultural labourer was once considered an unskilled man, a mere manual worker, but at last he has come into his own and is now recognised as a skilled man, worthy of a skilled man's wage. That is the change that has come over agriculture. The measures which the Government have recently advanced have to a large extent brought about that change, and for them we thank the Government. They have raised agricultural wages to 48s. per week, and the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) would have liked to have seen wages related to hours.
I agree that there should be 48s. a week for 48 hours' work, and that if a county wishes its men to work 54 hours, it should put the wages up to 54s. In the past the farmer has grown his crops for his own personal gain, and in his operations has had to consider keeping his land clean and the building-up of the fertility of the soil. To-day it is not for him to consider the building-up of the fertility of his land. In the national interest he is cashing-in on the fertility built up in past years. By taxation, whether Income Tax or Excess Profits Tax, the farmer's income will be definitely limited, and therefore both he and the agricultural worker are working not for themselves but for the country. The income of a farmer depends directly upon the weather. One year he may make a good profit, but in

the next the weather is bad, and instead of a profit he makes a loss. I should like to ask the Minister, when considering the question of taxation, to remember not to take too much away in a good year and so prevent the farmer being able to meet a year when adverse conditions prevail.
A great responsibility rests on the farmer to-day. He has to organise for food production. It is not a question whether a crop pays. The question he has to decide is whether the commodity that he is producing is the best one in the national interest, and on that question he would like the advice of the Government. It may be and possibly is being assumed that, because bread is the staff of life, wheat should be the first commodity in the list of production, but I would ask the Minister whether that is correct. An acre of wheat with fair average land produces something like four quarters. At 4½ cwts. to the quarter it would produce 18 cwts. an acre. An acre of potatoes producing 7 tons an acre produces 2½ tons of food products per acre. An acre under sugar beet at 10 tons per acre produces 1½ tons of actual sugar. I should like to submit those figures to the Minister and ask for his advice as to which of those crops is the best in the national interest for the farmer to grow. There is another crop. It is possible to grow 30 tons an acre of carrots. I would suggest to the Government and the war executive committees that fair land should have a rotation. The practice of agriculture is the rotation of crops. You cannot grow wheat or potatoes year after year. You cannot grow sugar beet year after year. There must be a rotation of crops. Can we get a rotation that will produce the largest possible quantity of foodstuffs? I suggest that we can by means of a three-course rotation of the crops which I have mentioned—wheat, followed by potatoes, followed by sugar beet. All these crops produce a large quantity of essential foodstuffs. I know from practical experience that this rotation is possible, for it is the rotation that I am working.

Mr. Tinker: Can sugar beet be grown all over the country?

Sir E. Shepperson: No, only on land that is suitable for sugar beet. If there is too much clay in the land, it is not economic to grow sugar beet. I should


like briefly to refer to the remark of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) that the time had come for us to feed more simply with more nutritious foods. The representative of the Ministry of Food is not present at the moment, but I suggest to the Minister that all the bread we are eating is white bread which has had the greatest sustenance taken from it. In order to make the best use of the wheat which we are growing in this country, we should make wholemeal bread, and do away with all white bread. The right hon. Gentleman also spoke of a great deal of fourth-rate land that is going out of cultivation. It has gone out of cultivation because in the past agriculture was treated as being of no importance. That land can be brought back into cultivation and stored up energy can be used, but to bring it back into cultivation will cost money. I am afraid that a great deal of it will have to be brought back into cultivation by the war agricultural committees or by the Minister himself, because neither the tenants nor the landowners can afford to spend the amount of money that will be necessary. Finally, I want to assure the Minister that the farmers and the labourers are not merely willing but anxious to do their bit, as the Army, Navy and Air Force are doing their bit, to win the war, and to let Hitler know that when he attempts to attack this country he is going to bite off more than he can chew.

9.19 p.m.

Mr. Barnes: What I appreciated most about the Minister's statement this afternoon was that he made no attempt to evade the fact that this is practically a one-year programme, and that it is governed by the grim necessities of the present military situation. Having listened to the Minister's very practical statement, I realised that a general expression of views on agricultural policy would be irrelevant at the present time. I have been a severe critic of the policy which successive Governments have followed with regard to agriculture. Now that we are facing the present emergency, and as we look back over the last 20 years of wasted effort, and find ourselves, on the Minister's own admission, in a situation in which, in the first year of the war, the agricultural and food produc-

tion position is worse than it was in 1917, I hope that when this Committee once more resumes the examination of a long-term policy for agriculture we shall not repeat the mistakes of the past, and that we shall recognise that the mere pouring of sums of money into the industry in no way settles its basic problems.
The most encouraging feature in the Minister's statement, although I recognise that for the moment it is limited and relates to the immediate programme of increased production next year, was the decision, even under present conditions, to organise a survey of agricultural production in this country. I sincerely trust that that survey, although used for its immediate purpose, will be used also as a starting point for a new agricultural policy in the future. It should yield an immense amount of valuable information with regard to the condition of the farming land of this country—types of soil in different localities, the yield of foods, and the type of foods which can be most economically produced. An adequate survey is vital. In the past our policy has been haphazard. Sometimes we have given a grant, a subsidy or a "dole" to this or that phase of agriculture which has led farmers to turn from one subsidised product to another. This survey will, I hope, be used to give us the knowledge whereby we can stabilise and redirect production and begin to produce a balanced food supply.
I should like to support and emphasise the references which were made by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) with regard to the encouragement of allotments. It is only natural in a Debate of this description, covering a year's emergency production, that the weight of opinion should express itself on the main field of production, namely, the farm land of this country. That aspect has been so extensively dealt with, that I feel that there is no need to keep on repeating the arguments. With regard to allotment production, there again the experience of the Ministry of Agriculture has been unhappy. There have been spurts in production, and then allotments have again fallen out of favour, and again a good deal of prejudice has had to be overcome. I think that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will agree that there has been an encouraging response during the last six or eight months, although, of course, it has not been nearly sufficient.


The point, therefore, arises whether the first burst into allotment production cannot he considerably increased this autumn ready for next year.
There is no need for gloomy or alarmist speeches on this matter. The average citizen appreciates the main facts of the situation which he has to face in regard to food supply. The Parliamentary Secretary, however, should bear in mind that the point has emerged clearly in this Debate that while the farmers grasp the general objective of the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry's own survey and examination of the problem have impressed on them the need of detailed direction. That applies to the general community. The average housewife is conversant with the source of her seasonal supplies and knows that most of them at certain seasons have to come from abroad. She is sufficiently intelligent and practical to realise that these sources of supply are now cut off. It is not an alarmist, gloomy and hopeless picture for her. She knows that these sources of supply are to be denied to this country while the present situation in Europe, the Channel Islands, in the Mediterranean and other places prevails. As regards a considerable increase in ultimate production, we must aim not at a 5, 10 or 20 per cent. increase, but direct our energies to get a vast increase in production in every direction. To a large number of working-class families, particularly those who are on fixed and low wages, an allotment can play an important part. In certain circumstances the prices of many green vegetables and salads will be beyond the reach of that type of family. It is all very well for Members to emphasise the nutritive value of an increased variety of foods of that type, but when they are necessary they are often beyond the capacity of a large number of people who want that type of food to purchase.
I suggest that propaganda among women's organisations would be valuable in this direction. I know that the question has been referred to local authorities, but they have rather a lot on their plates at the present moment. Now that the Ministry of Information have established their local committees, one of the jobs of which is to establish an intimate contact with people in the streets and in organisations and to provide them with current information, I suggest that lectures or personal explanation or information should

be given through trade union branches, co-operative organisations, Conservative and Liberal organisations, women's institutes, women's guilds, women's sections and bodies of that kind. The information should not be of an alarmist type to the effect that people will starve and that kind of thing, but should bring out in a business-like way the problems they will have to face in particular seasons with regard to certain supplies of foods that are essential, the high prices they are likely to have to pay, and the vital necessity with regard to their own domestic economy of thinking ahead and making their own contributions. I am convinced that if the women of our country, especially the working women, could have this problem brought home to them by propaganda which would put it before them from the point of view of their own domestic budgets rather than in a purely general way, they could influence their men folk enormously, and they would take care to see that every bit of the garden which could be cultivated was used for food production. In that way we should get a considerable increase of foodstuff.
One thing which has rather interested me to-night is that this is the first agricultural Debate in which I have taken part in which no representative of the farmers has complained about prices. The new schedule of prices has not been referred to, but I should like to deal with it. First, I would say that I do not approach this schedule of prices in the circumstances in which we are to-day in the way that I should do if we had to look at agriculture in relation to other industries and problems. During a war the Government of the day foster production and pay the price necessary to get it, but if that is done without regard to efficient and economical production, then the politicians desert the farmer after the war, and the collapse is correspondingly severe. A schedule of prices, either in war-time or in peace-time, should, in my view, always bear the test of a measurement, but we never get any indication from the representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture of any measurement test which they apply when prices are being fixed. We have had wheat increased by 32 per cent., oats by 26 per cent., potatoes by 20 per cent., sheep by 17 per cent., pigs by 11 per cent., and sugar-beet by 6 per cent., an average of about 20 per cent.
Here we see a contradiction develop in Government policy. There are 14 main items in the food section that goes to make up the cost of living, and this schedule of increased prices will affect very materially several items in the cost-of-living food index. I cannot vouch for it myself, but I asked an agricultural expert and a statistical expert to check it up for me, and they told me that it will advance prices by approximately 20 per cent. We have, on the other hand, the Ministry of Food conveying to the public an entirely different impression by the representations it is making to food traders to put up cheap packets of food. Perhaps it is too strong to say that it is farcical, but it conveys an entirely false impression to the community with regard to the effect that these cheap packets of food will have on their domestic budgets. I think it is a wrong policy to create two impressions in the minds of the public with regard to food. If the Government are of opinion that the circumstances are such that we cannot escape an increase in the price of foodstuffs, they should permit that fact to be absorbed by the public. It is wrong for two Government Departments to put out opposing ideas. The Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Agriculture are related intimately in the public mind; in fact, the public can hardly see any difference in the purpose of these Departments. I shall deal more fully with the Ministry of Food when that Department comes under review. In regard to the schedule of prices, it will advance approximately 20 per cent., and will increase considerably several items in the cost-of-living index, yet another Government Department is endeavouring to convey that as propaganda elsewhere. I do not want to stress this point just now.
I feel that we must look at the schedule of prices as a war-time programme. If the Ministry can convey to the public generally and to this House that the test is fair, no one will begrudge this schedule of prices. As a matter of fact, I ask again that a test should be applied on an ordinary farm, predominantly a dairy farm, to ascertain the effect of the new schedule of prices, taking into consideration particularly the new increase of agricultural wage rates up to 48s. per week. In the test that was given to me of a predominantly dairy farm, only the in-

creased milk prices were taken into consideration. The increase in wages on the farm will amount to £1,400 a year, yet the increased revenue from milk prices alone will amount to £2,948, a surplus of £1,548 on milk revenue alone, over and above the increased wages costs. Of course, there are other expenses to be taken into consideration, but that appears to be a very reasonable margin, apart from the increased prices of other articles that the farm may produce. As I say, one must expect, even in the present grim situation, that a Government Department, putting out a schedule of prices, and such economic reactions, should give to the country and the House of Commons some measure in regard to those matters.
There are other topics that I should like to touch upon, but, in view of the time, I will content myself with emphasising that if the Ministry wish to increase allotment production, the campaign must start immediately, because some weeks will elapse before it sinks into the minds of the community. During the last eight or 10 months, while we have heard a lot about food supply, nobody in the country has actually gone short of food. Ordinary routines of diet have hardly been interrupted. Therefore, I emphasise that, particularly in towns and urban areas, an immediate campaign would ease the situation in tens of thousands of working class homes next spring, summer and autumn.
My other point is that I sincerely hope the Minister will use the information that the survey is expected to yield, for current purposes, to begin to lay the foundation of a new policy such as we have never yet had in this country. It is that an efficiency production test should govern the granting of such aids as subsidies from the State. During war conditions, we might have to put up with the fact that the schedule of prices may keep the most inefficient farmer in production but because, at the moment, we cannot allow him to go out of production, that policy will not see agriculture through in time of normal peace economy. I see no reason why at this present moment a survey should not be used by the Department for the purpose of getting those conditions in a preparatory stage, so that when this war is over we can once more confront the problem of agriculture as a normal part of our life. We shall then get the maximum degree of unity, an


efficient agricultural system related to the needs of the consumers as well as the producers, and we shall be on the way to forming the basis of permanent agricultural prosperity.

9.41 p.m.

Mr. Christie: So far in this Debate nothing has been said about the position of the market gardener and the fruit grower, and they are people who employ more labour to the acre than any farmer. They are in a position now of having to pay the extra wage without any promise, so far as I can make out from the Minister, that they will be recompensed in any way at all. A great many market gardeners have been in the habit of growing flowers and bulbs as well as their market-garden produce, and a great many acres of flowers and bulbs have been ploughed up at the instance of the agricultural committees and replaced by vegetables. I find in my constituency great dissatisfaction at the vast number of lettuces which are going to seed because there is no market for them, cabbages which nobody wants and carrots which they cannot sell. The position of these unfortunate people is attacked on both sides. On the one side the most admirable allotment movement is producing an increasing quantity of vegetables, and on the other side the farmer in a big way of business is growing large acreages of such things as sprouts and cabbages. That puts the market gardener in a deplorable position, because while the farmer in a big way can perfectly well grow corn instead of vegetables, a market gardener cannot grow corn in a small acreage.
Then there is the question of the fruit grower, whose costs of cultivation and spraying are tremendously high. Last winter the price of apples was perfectly appalling. What will be the position this next winter? Then there is the question of the black currant crop, which is now being gathered. Many growers were led to believe by the newspapers that the Government had fixed a price of £56 a ton, and a great many growers entered into bargains to sell their currants more or less around that price. They now find that it is a free market, and those people who did not make such bargains may possibly get prices considerably higher. All that sort of thing causes great uneasiness and dissatisfaction. If the Minister or the

Parliamentary Secretary will give us some hope that the efforts of these unfortunate people to supply the country with what the country wants are going to be met with prices which will actually pay them, they will be very much obliged indeed to the Minister.

9.44 p.m.

Viscount Wolmer: I am sure that the hon. Member who has just spoken has deserved the thanks of the fruit-growing section of agriculture for what he has said. He represents one of the most important fruit-growing districts in England, and, as one coming from a much smaller fruit-growing district and being a fruit grower on a small scale, I know how true are his words. I am quite certain that nobody doubts that the farmers and the farm workers of this country will do everything that they possibly can to carry out the vigorous policy and programme that has been outlined by the Minister of Agriculture this afternoon. The farmers realise their responsibility in the matter, and the farm workers realise it, too. The Government have recognised the vital importance of agriculture by doing what they can to safeguard the labour supply. Agriculture feels that it is in exactly the same position as the munition workers, and that it has to turn out every ounce of food it possibly can. One of the most salient features of the right hon. Gentleman's speech this afternoon was the part in which he pointed out how much worse fitted in many respects we were in 1939 to face the threat of blockade than we were in 1914. That is a terrible reflection on this House of Commons. We who belong to the generation that lived through the last war remember the promises that were made then, the hopes that were entertained, the realisation that came to us of the vital necessity of agriculture. This House of Commons, and everyone of us, in greater or less degree, shares some responsibility.

Sir J. Lamb: And those who are outside the House now.

Viscount Wolmer: I quite agree with my hon. Friend. At the end of 25 years, agriculture is in a worse position to help the nation in its hour of need than it was in 1914. I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman recognises that fact, because unless you can diagnose the disease you cannot accurately prescribe the remedy. The root cause of the evil and


difficulty with which he has to grapple is the fact that the great majority of farmers in this country have no financial resources at all. Their land has been under-farmed for years, not through any lack of goodwill or of skill on their part, but simply because they had not the financial resources to carry them through; they were not getting the prices to enable them to farm in the way they would have liked. That goes right through the whole of the farms of this country. The land, the farm buildings, the implements, instead of being in A1 condition, are all in C3 condition. That is the problem that faces the right hon. Gentleman. I was very glad to see how fully he recognises that, and also how fully he recognises the effect on the landowners of the present conditions. You cannot get your farm buildings or cottages kept in proper repair unless somebody has the financial means to do it. I would point out to my hon. Friends on the Labour Benches that one of the results of raising the agricultural wage—and we all welcome the raising of the agricultural wage—is that the wages of everybody in the villages will have to go up. That means that the cost of all repairs to cottages and of all repairs to farm buildings is going up. The Government passed a law last September, which was very right in its object, to prevent the raising of cottage rents. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that unless some amendment is made in that Act, he will find it impossible to carry out cottage repairs in different parts of the country. The real key to the whole of this problem, as has been said time and again, is to secure that the farmer gets a fair price for his produce. If you will give him that, then you have gone nine-tenths of the way to solve your problems.
I want to give my right hon. Friend and the Committee one little bit of experience that I have had in the last few years, which, I think, had a bearing on what he was saying this afternoon, and I was reminded by those words of that experience. I have always been very sorry that past Governments have not made more use of the Agricultural Marketing Act. I have always thought marketing reform—as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has so often said—was one of the most hopeful methods by which you could help agri-

culture. I am not going into that tonight, but when the Milk Board and the Pigs Board were started they were not given a fair chance, and the discouragement and difficulties with which these boards met caused a whole setback to the marketing movement in this country.
I was instrumental in starting the first marketing board that was ever set up. It was a small marketing board—the Hops Marketing Board—which has been functioning very successfully ever since the year 1932. I want to tell the Committee of the unforeseen result that few of us anticipated when that board was set up. When I am talking about hops, I want the Committee to realise that I am not suggesting that hops are similar to every other crop in this country. They are not, but especially when you deal with such crops as fruit and other rather specialised crops, there is enough similarity in this analogy for us to learn a useful lesson. When the Hops Board was set up the hop-growing industry was in a state of bankruptcy. The setting-up of the board had to be approved by the House of Commons and at the time it was violently opposed by the brewers. There was a very touching alliance, I remember, between the brewers and Lord Astor to try to wreck the establishment of the Hops Board. The brewers were afraid that the establishment of the board would mean that they would have to pay more for their hops—and Lord Astor objected to the whole of the marketing policy of the Government—and, of course, the only reason why the farmers were supporting the hops scheme was that they hoped it would give them a better price for their hops. Owing to the difference of opinion and the acute controversy that existed at the time of its inauguration, the life of the scheme was limited by Parliament to seven years, and at the end of that time we had to go back to the Ministry of Agriculture and ask for a renewal of the scheme. We then had the whole-hearted and enthusiastic support of the brewers.

Mr. Pickthorn: What about Lord Astor?

Viscount Wolmer: Lord Astor, I think, is still opposed to it. He remains the one just man. The brewers entirely changed round, and why? It was not because they had not to pay more for their hops—they had had to pay more—and not


because they liked paying more than was necessary for what they bought, but because they found that the quality of the hops they were getting had steadily improved. Why? It was because the farmers were getting better prices for their produce, were able to cultivate their hops properly, grow bigger and better qualities of hops, buy modern machinery and put the latest type of kilns into their oast houses. You cannot find a more businesslike set of business men in this country than brewers, and very deliberately they came to the conclusion, as the result of their experiences, that it paid them as customers to pay a little bit more and have an agricultural industry that could supply a first-class article instead of having to rely on a third-class article. That was not foreseen by anybody at that time. If you give the farmers in this country a fair deal in regard to prices—whether you do it by subsidies, tariffs or marketing boards is not the point; we are not discussing that now—and at the same time give them security, they will spend money and raise new capital so that they can farm in the very best fashion.
I am a little bit nervous about one aspect of the policy of my right hon. Friend, although I realise that it commends itself to the enthusiasm of many Members of this Committee. I do not know whether he actually said so, but my right hon. Friend gave the impression that the Government would tell every farmer what he ought to grow on each field on his farm and how to grow it. I hope my right hon. Friend does not really intend to go as far as that, because the farmers of this country are not fools and are not inefficient. There are no two fields in the whole country that are the same, and the man who knows best what his fields are capable of is the man who has been farming them for a number of years. Therefore, the idea that scientists from agricultural colleges, bureaucrats from London or county war agricultural committees will be necessarily always right, and the farmer who has farmed the land always wrong, is a doctrine to which I, personally, cannot subscribe. It is a great mistake to think that the farmers of this country are inefficient as farmers, although I quite agree that they are not good sellers or marketers. But on the question of getting the best crops out of land the farmer, in

nine cases out of ten is the best judge. I quite agree that the Government will have to legislate to provide for the minority of cases, but I think there will be only a minority, and a small minority, of cases, in which a newcomer to the land will be able to tell the farmer more about his particular soil than he knows.
I see that my right hon. Friend does not agree, but I beg to differ. Inefficient farmers have not been able to survive during the last few years; it is only the efficient men who have been able to survive, and the fact that they have been farming on a "C" scale does not necessarily prove that they were fools. It means they were farming in such a way as to keep them out of the bankruptcy court in the conditions of the time. When you give him an assurance of decent prices and he realises, as he does, what his national duty is, that man, if he is not an inefficient farmer, will know better than most people what his own farm can produce. It is a great mistake to suppose that farmers do not pay attention to the results of science. I have been struck enormously, in the last few years especially, by the fact that the younger generation of farmers—most farmers farm with their sons on the land; it is the young men who keep the old men up to date—are exceedingly alive to the advances of science. But what you can do in the laboratory and in a Government experimental farm is not necessarily what you can do under ordinary farming conditions. That is the only caveat that I would put to the right hon. Gentleman's policy.
Then we have had rather an attack on the banks by my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, and that was followed up more drastically by the hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. De la Bère). I happen to be a part-time farmer and also a part-time banker, so I see both sides of the case, but I do not think that what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs said about the banks was quite fair, although I think a tilt at the penguins of the City is always dear to his heart. After all, the banks have lent £50,000,000 to the farmers, and I know that no banker is pressing any farming account at present, if for no other reason than that the Government have asked him not to do it, and no case has ever been brought to my notice since the war began of any bank


behaving harshly to any farmer. But really you will not get over the problem simply by credit. What is preventing farmers from borrowing more from the banks is the fact that they know they will have to repay one day. They have to see their way to get their money back. You come back to that every time. You will not find responsible, reasonable men willing to borrow money unless they can see their way to pay it back. So again you come back, as you always do, to the question of prices.
There are one or two questions that I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary. The first is in regard to the ploughing-up of commons, which was dealt with by my Noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton).

Earl Winterton: I did not say ploughing-up. I wanted them cleared for the purpose of grazing.

Viscount Wolmer: I want to go further. What the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs said is true. We have to make the best use of every acre of land in the country. The right hon. Gentleman said that what we regard as fourth-class and useless land the people of Denmark have cultivated. That is also true. There are thousands of acres of land round where he lives which have not been cultivated in the memory of man. I want to ask the Minister whether he proposes to take any steps to cultivate these great stretches of heatherland. I believe that some of them—I do not say all of them—would be capable of growing a potato crop next year. I do not see why this should not also be applied to commons. The right hon. Gentleman has got to be drastic in his policy; he has got to go the whole hog. Let him get all the machinery he can, let him call upon the farmers to do everything he requires them to do. There are then these great tracts of Crown Land, much of which is required for the manoeuvring of troops, and therefore is perhaps not available for agriculture, although I do not think the two are really incompatible. Troops manoeuvre on my farm without doing any harm. These great tracts of Crown Land and commons do not represent the best agricultural land in the country no doubt, but I am sure that much of that land is capable of growing a potato crop. I hope this matter will

receive the consideration of the Ministry of Agriculture, if it has not yet received it.
The right hon. Gentleman told us that he is providing machinery to enable farmers to carry out this programme. I want to ask him what he is doing about ensilage. Is he providing the silos to enable the requisite amount of ensilage to be made this season? My information—and I think I am entitled to give it to the Committee, for it did not reach me from any confidential source—is that the Ministry of Agriculture have been anxious for the past two months to order, or arrange for the ordering of, a large number of silos, but they have been held up by objections from the Treasury. I should be very much obliged if the Parliamentary Secretary would correct that impression on my part, if it is a false impression, and also tell us exactly what steps the Ministry have taken to provide for silos in order to carry out the ensilage programme.
There was then a very pertinent question raised by one of my hon. Friends earlier in the Debate, of which the Minister of Agriculture recognised the importance, though if he did not deal with it. I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary could tell us a little bit more about it. It is the question of the provision of further housing accommodation for rural workers. That strikes me as being a particularly difficult and fearfully important problem. As has been pointed out, owing to the depression of the last 20 years, the population on the land has been steadily dwindling, fewer farm cottages have been required, and therefore, the cottages have either been sold to week-enders and turned into something more like country houses than cottages, or simply allowed to tumble down because the landlord had not the money to keep them in repair. Therefore, there are thousands fewer cottages than there were in 1914. The Government now want this greatly increased agricultural output, and it will be necessary to have more men working on the land. I know that the right hon. Gentleman recognises the importance of providing further housing accommodation, but I confess that I do not quite see how he is going to do it at the present time. If the Parliamentary Secretary could take us a little bit into his confidence, and tell us what are the Government's plans in that respect, I


am sure the Committee would be very much interested.
I do not see how we are to get this programme carried out unless we get more men working in agriculture. Women cannot do it all themselves. Farmers feel at the present moment—and I am not saying whether they are right or wrong—that the agricultural wage which has been fixed for the women land workers is higher than a woman is capable of earning, even with improved prices. That is why there are thousands of would-be land girls whom farmers are unwilling to take on. They cannot see their way to getting a return from a girl, because she has not the physical strength. I myself have had four land girls on my farm, and I am bound to say that they are not an economical source of labour. It is a thing which all of us, in a position to do so, should support, but there are so many things on a farm which a woman has not the physical strength to do that is not a cheap form of labour. I do not know how the Government are going to get over it; but you cannot force farmers to employ land girls, and it may be that the wage will have to be reconsidered.
I should like to conclude by wishing my right hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary every success in the Herculean task which they have undertaken. It falls to their lot to make good the mistakes of 25 years, and they have to do it in 12 months. They will have the good wishes of everyone in this House and everyone outside it, and I am quite certain that if the Government take the agricultural industry as a whole into their confidence, and work with farmers, farm workers and landowners, and appeal to them in the spirit of colleagues, striving for the common cause, they will find agriculturists willing to do everything they can to make that programme a success.

10.13 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. T. Williams): For these past several years I have been one of the chief unpaid advisers to various Ministers of Agriculture, and it is therefore, a welcome change to be able now to receive all this free advice. I assure hon. Members that if their advice is nearly as good as that which I used to give, it will be carefully sifted and acted upon.

Viscount Wolmer: Will the Joint Parliamentary Secretary take his own advice?

Mr. Williams: The Noble Lord can rest assured that my own advice will not only be acted upon, but I hope that as a result of my association with my right hon. Friend, it will also be improved upon. I think I have heard nearly every speech which has been made, except a maiden speech, and there has been little or no criticism until the end. My right hon. Friend fortunately is a man of action, as has been evidenced by the steps he has already taken in regard to wages, prices, labour, technical assistance, drainage and the powers referred to to-day. If my right hon. Friend can only have a few more months to operate, the area of criticism will have been severely limited. A lot has been said about farming from Whitehall, and I hope my right hon. Friend will never attempt to do so, but I am sure it is his intention to do everything he possibly can to help farmers to achieve the maximum results on every farm in the country. The farmer who fails the nation at this moment ought to be given very little sympathy indeed.
Before dealing with the many points of a general character that have been raised, I should like to make one or two observations with regard to labour and drainage. As hon. Members will know, there has been a general decline since 1921. From 1929 to 1939 the number lost was no fewer than 100,000 labourers. Since hostilities began a further 70,000 left the farms to enter the Services or for better-paid employment. In the early days of the war the age of reservation for nearly all classes was 21, but more recently there has been a change in the age of reservation, and now, for farmers, crofters, smallholders, bailiffs, stewards, foremen, headmen, carters, horsemen, ploughmen, machine attendants, tractor drivers and threshing machine attendants the age of reservation has been reduced to 18. Key workers at 20 can apply for postponement, and the first postponement can be extended until the person arrives at 21, after which he would become reserved. I am bound to say the Army authorities have been extremely generous in their attitude towards these applications for postponement. Still, however, a very serious labour problem remains. A clause was embodied in Government contracts in the hope that all


labour supply for them would be recruited from Employment Exchanges, but this was found not to be watertight. It was the vast disparity between the wages of agricultural and urban workers which made it well nigh impossible to retain agricultural labour upon the land.
Therefore, if this last campaign and the new campaign about to commence are to have any chance of success, some drastic steps had to be taken to deal with the labour problem. My right hon. Friend, in co-operation with the Minister of Labour and with the approval of the National Farmers' Union and the trade-union representatives, devised the threefold policy to deal with wages, prices and the virtual conscription of agricultural labour as the only conceivable means of a voiding a further drift from the land and of attracting back to the land agricultural labourers who had left to go on Government contracts, when those contracts were completed. That has at least steadied the position, but it has in no way solved the real labour problem on the land. Other measures have been taken, and my right hon. Friend has appealed to local authorities in the country to release roadmen with agricultural experience so that they may render service in agriculture for various periods during the year. Then my right hon. Friend and the Minister of Labour jointly have appealed to farmers, where conscientious objectors are available, to accept them and train them and allow them to fulfil the conditions imposed upon them by the tribunals when they gave exemption from military service. While agriculture is so peculiar that we have approximately 300,000 effective farms and 550,000 agricultural labourers, regular and seasonal, which is less than two labourers for each farm, it is easy to see that agriculture must be maintained by skilled men. Yet there is and will be great scope for supplementary labour for seasonal and harvesting work.
My right hon. Friend's predecessor and my right hon. Friend have devised various schemes to supplement the labour that is available. The Women's Land Army may not have achieved the dimensions that some people would desire, but at least 8,000 women have been recruited for it, and almost all are now working on the land. I am bound to say that the experience of the Noble Lord is not uniform throughout the country, for there are on

record cases in which farmers have been grateful that they were able to get members of the Women's Land Army; and in any case, if the situation is as grave as we all know it to be, if a woman is willing to be trained and to work in agriculture 2s. or 3s. a week ought not to make the difference between whether a farmer will employ that woman or not. While my right hon. Friend is doing his best to recruit for them such labour as is available, I hope that farmers will take members of the Women's Land Army who have been trained for the work.
Then there is the Women's Land Army Auxiliary Force, for seasonal work. They can be of great use for harvesting. An appeal was sent to all the universities to recruit students to work during the vacation for one or two weeks, or a month, or 10 weeks. I am delighted to say that no fewer than 2,000 students have agreed to work on the land, their readiness to work being, so far, rather in advance of the willingness of the farmers to accept their services, and I understand that 200 or 300 students are still available for farmers. Then my right hon. Friend has been attempting, in co-operation with the Association of Headmasters, to recruit boys from public schools and secondary schools, and to utilise such labour as may be available at holiday camps, and civilian internees and prisoners of war will be readily accepted for work on the land where they have knowledge of agriculture. An appeal has also been made to holiday makers. Whatever part of the country they may go to, if they feel they would like to put in a few days or a week's work on a farm, they should apply to the local Employment Exchange. In certain parts of the country gang labour has been organised, not perhaps on a very large scale, but at least a start has been made in that direction.
Finally, and here I would reply to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay), a scheme for elementary school boys has been produced, and for the first time in its history the Ministry of Agriculture has taken over a function originally carried out by the Ministry of Labour. Where a boy of 14 can be persuaded to accept work on a farm and a farmer can be found willing to accept him, the Treasury will pay the farmer 12s. a week for the first month, 8s. a week for the second month, and 4s. a week for the third month. During that period all that


the boy receives from the farmer is board and lodging and 2s. 6d. a week spending money. We do not expect that in England and Scotland we shall get a large influx of boys of 14, but everyone may make a permanent worker and augment our general agricultural labour supply. But in spite of all the efforts we have made, farmers have not been very helpful so far. It may be that the announcement of the increases of wages before the appearance of the new schedule of prices caused hesitation on the part of farmers, but I hope that the new schedule of prices, the new survey which is taking place, and the advice and the guidance which are being given to them, will inspire farmers to make the best use of all sources of labour.

Sir J. Lamb: Before the hon. Gentleman passes from the question in regard to farm work, I would like to ask whether it will be possible for the farmer to retain that boy after the period of training? In the other scheme, I think, the boy could go to another man?

Mr. Lindsay: Is there any obligation?

Mr. Williams: So far as I understand the scheme, there is no obligation upon a boy to remain with any particular farmer. If the boy remains with one farmer for three months, the farmer provides the boy with the training and receives the Treasury grant for the whole three months. I assume that the farmer's treatment of the boy will largely determine whether the boy remains with that farmer or not. We can only hope that a community of interest between the farmer and the boy will grow up, during the period of training.
I would say another word in regard to drainage. I know that the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) is particularly interested in drainage. I need not make a lengthy reference to the Act of 1930 dealing with main rivers, except to say that schemes already approved, for which grants have been provided, amount to approximately £13,000,000. Instead of sending the catchment board a postcard or even a circular letter, the executive of the National Catchment Board were sent for from London, and they were invited to concentrate upon those schemes on the main rivers, which would help to provide an increase in the harvests for

1940–41. We understand that to concentrate upon lesser rather than upon larger schemes would involve about £7,000,000. I need not say that the catchment board executive expressed their readiness and willingness to comply with the request of my right hon. Friend.
The scheme by which smaller watercourses dealt with under the terms of the 1937 Act, by district drainage boards or county or county boroughs, where 50 per cent. grant can be obtained, either for public or private works, has now been accelerated tremendously, and the number of schemes received and approved since 1st January this year is almost 50 per cent. of the total of the schemes that have been received since October, 1937. The total number of schemes approved so far will cost £1,100,000, and it is expected that they will benefit no fewer than 1,000,000 acres of land. I repeat that, since 1st January, the procedure has been to some extent simplified, and we hope to simplify it further. We hope that circumlocution will be cut out and that action will be accelerated.
As to the Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) Act, 1940, under the provisions dealing with the farm watercourses and not with main rivers, only one new scheme has been so far submitted, although 50 are on the way. This is very disappointing indeed, but is very largely due to the dilatory procedure. A case was brought to his notice, in which my right hon. Friend had no hesitation whatever in taking action, and almost immediately a regulation was produced to short-circuit the procedure of the 1940 Act. Now, if the county executive, examining the area, decide that a drainage scheme ought to go through, they invite the catchment board to prepare one, but before they do so they have to ascertain the names and addresses of owners in the area and give them time to lodge objections against any scheme, to apply to see the scheme after it is produced, and, after, to have further time to put in their objection. Long before the scheme is approved and well on the way, the next war will be over.
My right hon. Friend has accelerated that procedure and now the war executive committee, having made up their mind that this area of land ought to be drained, invite the catchment board to prepare a scheme. They prepare a


scheme at once, and all these formalities will be dealt with while the scheme is in course of preparation. We hope that schemes will now come in at a very rapid rate and that a further 250,000 acres will be drained in the course of a short period of time. Mole drainage was dealt with in the 1940 Act, and schemes calculated to improve 33,000 acres have already been approved. The only missing link, as I see it at the moment, is tile drainage, and that was dealt with by my right hon. Friend in his speech. I do not think I need make any further reference to that.
Drainage authorities have the labour problem just as much as farmers. They have already lost 15 per cent. of their skilled operatives, largely for better paid work, and they are finding it extremely difficult to carry on their work in those circumstances. The age of reservation has now been reduced from 30 to 18, and other measures are being considered to augment their labour supply. But they have a further problem with regard to machinery, for the War Office have requisitioned a large part of their excavating machinery for defence works, and we can only hope that because drainage work is held up for the moment, the War Office will very quickly return this machinery to our catchment boards. If we can supply the catchment boards with labour and machinery, hundreds of thousands of acres can readily be restored to fertility, and it is the object of my right hon. Friend to see that that is done at the earliest possible moment.
Now to the more general questions raised in the course of the Debate. The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winterton) referred to conditions in Sussex and generally in the South, which, unfortunately, are too general in all parts of the country. Whether the farmers have not farmed because of their lack of knowledge or their poverty, I am unable to say at the moment, and from my point of view it matters little or nothing. What we are concerned about is what we shall do in future with that land which has only been partially cultivated. As to the scheme outlined by my right hon. Friend to-day, with 11 new liaison officers and expert staffs from the colleges working in conjunction with members of the war agri-

cultural executives, we shall expect them to apply themselves to areas such as that described by the Noble Lord, and we hope to see the results of their activities in the harvest of 1940–41. I can at this moment reply to the Noble Lord who spoke last with regard to ploughing up the commons. Where it is felt that a crop can be obtained in the next harvest, we think it would be quite reasonable to plough up any proportion of that land, and instructions and advice will be tendered accordingly.

Earl Winterton: May I interrupt? I presume that the Minister has taken into consideration the very complicated commons laws, and that exactly the same conditions will apply to lords of the manor as will be applied to private owners? That is to say, they will be ordered to do it?

Mr. Williams: I think that my right hon. Friend said he intended to be ruthless, and if he will have no partial affections and if no private interests will stand in his way, then I expect uniform treatment is bound to be meted out. With regard to the question of grass verges, I notice that the Ministry of Agriculture did send out a letter to county councils as late as last April, inviting them to deal with grass obtainable from grass verges. I am informed that the Ministry of Health, as a result of the Noble Lord's representation, have sent instructions to their divisional road engineers in the London and Southern areas, asking them to draw the attention of highway authorities to the need for making the best use of roadside grass. I hope that that advice will be taken.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs almost embarrassed me by his congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Minister. When I heard him welcome the survey, welcome my right hon. Friend's drainage proposals, and welcome the compulsory powers that my right hon. Friend intended to take, I wondered whether there would be anything left for the right hon. Gentleman to criticise. However, he came back to one of my own pet subjects, namely, marketing. I am bound to confess that I agree with every word he said with regard to marketing, and I hope that he will enjoy himself next Thursday, when the Ministry of Food are answering for their sins, and


that he will invite them to get on with schemes for different commodities, including vegetables. The Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) knows something about the hops scheme, and has been for years an advocate of better marketing schemes. Some of the marketing schemes which emerged from the 1931 Act have never fulfilled the purposes from which they were intended. They have tended to become price-fixing schemes, and we find to-day that in some instances, instead of the number of people between the producer and the consumer being reduced, it is actually increased. There must be some room for efficiency and real organisation in the marketing boards.
With regard to credit, all I can say is this: The Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot always came back, whatever practical proposal was made or whatever difficulty appeared to be in the way of the farmer, to the question of prices. It may be that my right hon. Friend has miscalculated, but if his calculation is anywhere near correct, this new schedule of prices ought to solve the credit problem for farmers. Should the new schedule not solve the problem and should we find farmers still hesitant to do the work they should do because of lack of credit, I am sure that my right hon. Friend has art open mind on the subject, and anything which may stand in the way of the success of the campaign be it credit or anything else, will receive his early and earnest attention.
My hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price) said that we ought to use our price control in order to get the food that we require during this emergency period. I entirely agree. If the price-fixing machine is used, plus the intimidation which can be applied to farmers, we can get the kinds of food we require in the quantities in which we require them. Variations in price ought to be utilised for doing what the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean suggested and the keeping of fat cattle on the hoof until the time when they ought to be marketed.
My hon. Friend also had fears for the poultry industry. I can tell him that all the experts in the poultry industry and county executive committees have been interviewed. We have considered every conceivable kind of suggestion from them whereby specialist poultry keepers may

assist us. So far no scheme has been produced that would allow us to escape from the unpleasant situation of not having the proper quantity of feeding-stuffs for our poultry. We have made suggestions that, in certain cases where specialist poltry-keepers are in numbers, then some part of their number ought to find work elsewhere, the smaller number remaining behind to care for such poultry as we can provide feeding-stuffs for. It may be that a specialist poultry-keeper adjoining a farm may take his poultry on to the farm and help to fertilise a field or fields which badly need fertilisation. It may be that the farmers could plough up land upon which poultry have been far too long, but as far as we can see no rationing of feeding-stuff is possible. We want to see pedigree stock preserved and that is why the minimum herds will be reduced to round about one third. If the Department can be helpful in any part of the country to any individual or individuals, it will be our great joy to help them over their difficulties.
The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) asked whether we were still exporting nitrogenous fertilisers. I can answer that question at once. We are not exporting nitrogenous fertilisers at present. He also referred to the question of barley prices being left uncontrolled so that we might get too much barley produced. I do not think that that fear exists since farmers are usually wise enough not to knock the bottom out of their own market, and I do not think there is any likelihood of farmers producing more barley than we can safely consume at a reasonable price to the producer. Another question which the hon. Member asked was as to the situation with regard to the sugar beet season. We have ample supplies for the 1941 season and are endeavouring to accumulate stocks to ensure ample stocks for the season 1942. The hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. De la Bère) had a lot to say about credits, but he does not happen to be here and therefore there is no necessity to make a special reply to him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) asked a question or two about wage inspectors. During the period from September 2,707 complaints were investigated, and in addition 1,195 test inspections were made on farms. Since the war commenced,


however, complaints have appreciably reduced, and there has been a slowing down of their work because inspectors have been diverted to other activities. But in view of the increased wages it is fair to assume, in view of our experience in the past, that we shall not be more negligent perhaps in the future than we have been during the past few years. In any case, I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall keep this matter under close observation.
My hon. Friend also made some reference to the hours of labour. It is true that in 10 counties a slight increase in hours was fixed by the county wages committees, when wages were increased to 48s. a week. Most of the 10 counties were low-wage counties, where, instead of increasing the wage by 10s. per week, they actually had to increase wages by 14s. per week to make the wages up to 48s. Where the hours have been increased only by one or two per week but the wages have been increased by 14s. a week, I personally see no real ground for grievance. The only case outstanding has already been dealt with by my right hon. Friend. Cases have been referred to by the hon. Member for Normanton in which farmers have dismissed employés. One can only hope that my hon. Friend will let us have information about such cases because if farmers are deliberately perverting the ideas and desires of every hon. Member of this Committee, it is the duty of my right hon. Friend to have such cases investigated at once.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison) mentioned the work which is being done in his constituency, in the collection of household waste for pig food. I am sure I voice the feelings of the Committee as a whole when I say that we were interested in what he said about the progress of that scheme. Speaking for the Ministry of Agriculture and my right hon. Friend in particular, I can say that we have watched this experiment with interest and no little gratitude. My hon. Friend can rest assured that the Minister will do everything in his power to encourage the continuance and extension of this valuable work. As regards machinery, that is rather beyond the scope of my right hon. Friend and perhaps involves some other Department. All that I can say at the moment is that the work is being watched

with interest and gratitude, and anything the Department can do to assist the Tottenham experiment will be done—

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Could my hon. Friend go a little further and say that in return for our 130 tons of kitchen waste for pig food we might be able to get three or four tons of meal for our own pigs?

Mr. Williams: Without attempting to commit the Department to any actual figures, I am sure my right hon. Friend will be ready to look at the proposal.
The hon. Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) has explained that she cannot be here as she has to visit a doctor, but I think I am entitled to reply to her submission with regard to silage in clamps, pits and stacks. The Ministry value this means of conserving food; they have encouraged it by means of the Press, by advertisements and instructional leaflets. Demonstrations have taken place quite recently at farming institutes in Staffordshire, Lancashire and Durham. It is a valuable method of conserving food but has the disadvantage that it entails a certain amount of waste. In order to make silage by the ordinarily accepted means it is necessary to have short grass, stimulated by fertilisers, and made fool-proof by the use of molasses and treacle. While pushing this scheme, the Department have no desire to crab the scheme to which the hon. Lady referred. She also put another question in regard to a breakdown in any agricultural area in any part of the country. I understand that arrangements have been made whereby an officer or officers of the Ministry will be available to advise the Regional Commissioners in the event of a breakdown in communications. These officers will be familiar with agricultural conditions in the various regions of the Government's food production policy.
To the hon. and gallant Member for Wells (Lieut.-Colonel Boles) I must say that I am sorry I cannot compliment him because I did not hear him, but I can compliment him on what he said. He raised the question of the vaccine used at present and being produced at the Ministry's experimental station at Weybridge. It is true to say that more reactors are showing up than was the case with the vaccine which was previously used. It is now thought that the old vaccine was not of a uniform strength,


and numbers slipped through which are now being shown up and which unfortunately may have affected others in the herds. I do not quite know where the developments will lead us, but it seems that the Weybridge vaccine is infinitely more stable and reliable than that which has been used hitherto. The hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) wanted to know whether some scheme could not be produced for rationing feeding-stuffs. A great deal of consideration has been given to that possibility, but no workable scheme so far has been discovered. I am sorry not to be more helpful, but a rationing scheme is well nigh impracticable in view of all the difficulties involved.
The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) referred to labour and suggested that the Department ought to release tractor drivers from the Army who have been to France and elsewhere, for a period of three months. Without consulting my right hon. Friend, I think I can say he would welcome their release if the Army authorities can be prevailed upon to release them, but we are attempting to train as many tractor drivers as w ill be necessary for the forthcoming campaign. I understand there are a few more questions that I might have replied to, but I can assure hon. Members that there are sound reasons why I should not speak any longer. I hope, therefore, that the Minister's statement to-day and the assurances that I have given generally will give ample room for optimism, and

I hope we can continue to collect all the support and confidence of hon. and right hon. Members in all parts of the Committee.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Grimston.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Tuesday next.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.

Read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for Tuesday next.

Orders of the Day — WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (SUPPLEMENTARY ALLOWANCES) BILL.

Order for Committee read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Grimston.]

Adjourned accordingly at Six Minutes before Eleven o'clock, until Tuesday next, pursuant to the Resolution of the House this day.